On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 3:54 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:59 AM Shlok Kyal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have added the fix of the same in the latest v41 patch and added the > > corresponding test in 101_test.pl file. > > I have also merged the v40-0001 and v40-0002 patches to form v41-0001 > > patch and v41-0002 has the extended tests. > > > > Thank You for the patched Shlok. While testing I found a case where > table-sync and incremental-sync are not replicating same set of > tables. > > I have attached the test-case and results in DifferentPubViaRoot.txt > > The problem happens when we have a subscriber subscribing to multiple > pubs with different EXCEPT and different PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT > value. Example: > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 for ALL TABLES EXCEPT table (tab_part_1_p1, > tab_part_2_p2) WITH (PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT=true); > CREATE PUBLICATION pub2 for ALL TABLES EXCEPT table (tab_part_2) WITH > (PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT=false); > > We need to decide the behaviour of such a case for Apporach1. >
It is better to disallow such combinations where combining publications could lead to contradictory behavior. For example, pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1) and pub2: FOR TABLE tab1. Now, combining pub1 and pub2 via subscription should result in an ERROR. We have similar restrictions for column lists. See section: "Warning: Combining Column Lists from Multiple Publications" in docs [1]. Does that sound reasonable to you? [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-col-lists.html -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
