MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CALDaNm3=JrucjhiiwsYQw5-PGtBHFONa6F7hhWCXMsGvh=tamA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACVOzhs+BD+abFV2x4oKJdsDNd6SgsE7r8UjnZDCKGEckA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1K6Kr88d2S0zFdHRMyuoaZeNh+ktU+oigmCuD09_x_-+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PsvC-NezO3MJkdyEz=G1QRje2LntjwhQiEeVbmhOQuBMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm18VH2j8cTqfELHQ=0ZNognbGBhbHPteJenWQC6C2dueQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm0k_0Ccj47wzJzzPFwgQB7w=R5+Q2_nSqYrmMmjhmcRUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+Pv_0DwyWoGQNMF+G2AGqMuJTzWQKRtmxaC+=zLTPL-Zkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm2-GJt2HsYTkLqQ=ecm=R-vOBw1=aM_d2EiYbz39x_cTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PtrtNu-YsBCk3ZySENBHtiwYw=Xqn86gdPAzd0AhfXOZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JEKs8qwwhRb1BCiMNduJ5ePUtFnTscrZt86UKWBkLxwg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1JEKs8qwwhRb1BCiMNduJ5ePUtFnTscrZt86UKWBkLxwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 14:29:33 +1000
Message-ID: 
 <CAHut+Ps17ZshcLKqmaFVVhMKMrHozVGAykSDbTBZ=Pd=YqUDdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Skipping schema changes in publication
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs17ZshcLKqmaFVVhMKMrHozVGAykSDbTBZ%3DPd%3DYqUDdg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 1:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Below are my review comments for v5-0002.
> >
> > There may be an overlap with comments recently posted by Osumi-san [1].
> >
> > (I also have review comments for v5-0002; will post them tomorrow)
> >
> > ======
> >
> > 1. General
> >
> > Is it really necessary to have to say "EXCEPT TABLE" instead of just
> > "EXCEPT". It seems unnecessarily verbose and redundant when you write
> > "FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE...".
> >
> > If you want to keep this TABLE keyword (maybe you have plans for other
> > kinds of except?)
> >
>
> I don't think there is an immediate plan but one can imagine using
> EXCEPT SCHEMA. Then for column lists, one may want to use the syntax
> Create Publication pub1 For Table t1 Except Cols (c1, ..);
>
> > then IMO perhaps at least it can be the optional
> > default except type. e.g. EXCEPT [TABLE].
> >
>
> Yeah, that might be okay, so, even if we plan to extend this in the
> future, by default we will consider the list of tables after EXCEPT
> but if the user mentions EXCEPT SCHEMA or something else then we can
> use a different object. Is that sound okay?

Yes. That is what I meant.

>
> >
> > 3. General
> >
> > The ONLY keyword seems supported by the syntax for tables of the
> > except-list (more on this in later comments) but:
> > a) I am not sure if the patch code is accounting for that, and
> > b) There are no test cases using ONLY.
> >
> > ~~~
> >
>
> Isn't it better to map ONLY with the way it can already be specified
> in CREATE PUBLICATION? I am not sure what exactly is proposed and what
> is your suggestion? Can you please explain if it is different from the
> way we use it for CREATE PUBLICATION?
>

Yes, I am not proposing anything different to how ONLY already works
for published tables. I was only questioning whether the patch behaves
correctly when ONLY is specified for the tables of the EXCEPT list. I
had some doubt about it because there are a few other review comments
I wrote (e.g. in pg_dump.c),  and also I did not find any ONLY tests,

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia