On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 11:41, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 7:50 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:35 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I would like to summarize the discussion/feedback for the EXCEPT > > > syntax implemented in [1]. > > > > > > 1) > > > The currently implemented syntax is ([1]): > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE (a, b, c); > > > > > > There were concerns about why the TABLE keyword and the parentheses > > > '()' are required. These have been answered in [2]. > > > > > > Please review the discussion there. > > > > > > 2) > > > Another feedback on current syntax was to move the TABLE keyword > > > inside the parentheses: > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE t2, > > > TABLES IN SCHEMA s1); > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA s1 EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE > > > t2), TABLE t3; > > > > > > While this approach is workable, a downside is the repeated use of the > > > TABLE keyword inside the parentheses, which can become verbose. But it > > > can then be optimized to have: > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, t3); > > > > > > This could be extended further in the future: > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLES IN > > > SCHEMA s1, s2); > > > > > > This approach gives users flexibility to mix styles, for example: > > > > > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE t2, TABLE t3) > > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, t3) > > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLE t3) > > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLES IN SCHEMA s1, s2, TABLE t2, t3) > > > > > > While flexible, this can reduce clarity due to mixed styles, making > > > the statement harder to read. If extended further, the syntax could > > > evolve into something like: > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR > > > ALL TABLES > > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLES IN SCHEMA s1, s2), > > > ALL SEQUENCES > > > EXCEPT (SEQUENCE s1); > > > > > > At this point, one might also question why not allow something like: > > > FOR ALL (TABLES, SEQUENCES). > > > > > > Additionally, this shows a potential drift toward less structured > > > syntax. Instead, with the syntax already implemented in [1], its > > > future extension would look like: > > > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR > > > ALL TABLES > > > EXCEPT TABLE (t1, t2), > > > EXCEPT TABLES IN SCHEMA (s1, s2), > > > ALL SEQUENCES > > > EXCEPT SEQUENCE (seq1, seq2); > > > > > > Although slightly more verbose, this approach keeps each clause > > > self-contained and explicit. The meaning of each part is determined > > > locally, rather than depending on elements appearing far in the > > > statement. > > > > > > The current syntax in [1] is simple and easy to follow. We have > > > retained the current implementation for now, while remaining open to > > > further discussion and suggestions. > > > > > > [1]: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2-Ob9qPR%2BvqUSVMkxYO8RW4LQ_S1XiB0Y7xa54U%3DDqbA%40mail.gmail.com > > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=fd366065e06ae953c4f2d973d5c5f0474f3b87b6 > > > > > > [2]: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uB20MhJJEaPJdm31t4fykJ%2BfChA_76jU2P9HX5knbJvAA%40mail.gmail.com > > > > > > Thanks for the summary. While I find the current implementation > > simpler and more intuitive, and would prefer it if we were designing > > this from scratch, we must consider the existing patterns for table > > inclusion. Since the inclusion syntax already supports a mixed > > approach, users will likely expect the same flexibility for > > exclusions. For the sake of consistency across the features, I believe > > we should move toward the mixed approach, despite my preference for > > the current structured style. > > > > IIUC, you think that we should change the current syntax "CREATE > PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE (a, b, c);" to "CREATE > PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE a, b, c);". > > By now multiple people (Dilip Kumar, Peter Smith, Sawada Masahiko) > have preferred the alternate syntax, to move TABLE inside () to make > specifying inclusion and exclusion list in a similar way. Unless we > have more feedback, I think we can change it now.
Attached patch has the changes for the same. Regards, Vignesh
0001-Change-syntax-of-EXCEPT-TABLE-clause-in-publication-.patch
Description: Binary data
