On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 9:21 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
Hi Amit. I understand there can be some tricky scenarios where partitions are involved, but I was not sure why "pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1) and pub2: FOR TABLE tab1" is an example of contradictory behaviour. Consider if the publisher has 3 tables tab1,tab2,tab3: Here, "pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1)" is like a shorthand for saying "pub1: FOR TABLE tab2,tab3" So what's wrong for the subscriber to combine pub1 and pub2 in this case? Indeed, if the user wants ALL TABLES, but they want a row filter applied *only* for tab1, isn't this combination probably a good way to achieve that? e.g. "pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1) and pub2: FOR TABLE tab1 WHERE (c == 99)". ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
