On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Sawada-san, > > > I'm still unsure that the syntax like TABLE (t1, t2) for the exclusion > > list is syntactically correct. The syntax of TABLE (...) is already > > used in a quite different way as follows (borrowed an example from > > stats_import.sql): > > > > CREATE FUNCTION stats_import.pg_statistic_get_difference(a text, b text) > > RETURNS TABLE (relname text, stats stats_import.pg_statistic_flat_t) > > BEGIN ATOMIC > > WITH aset AS (SELECT * FROM stats_import.pg_statistic_flat(a)), > > bset AS (SELECT * FROM stats_import.pg_statistic_flat(b)) > > SELECT a AS relname, a_minus_b::stats_import.pg_statistic_flat_t > > FROM (TABLE aset EXCEPT TABLE bset) AS a_minus_b > > UNION ALL > > SELECT b AS relname, b_minus_a::stats_import.pg_statistic_flat_t > > FROM (TABLE bset EXCEPT TABLE aset) AS b_minus_a; > > END; > > > > Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a plural form or the IN > > keyword, such as EXCEPT TABLES (t1, t2) or EXCEPT TABLES IN (t1, t2)? > > But there is an existing syntax to list target tables, FOR TABLE t1, t2, > t3..., > which does not have the plural. Current rule is to use the singular for > specifying the exact table, and we follow.
"TABLE t1, t2, t3" and "TABLE (t1, t2, t3)" are different to me since the latter reminds me of TABLE (...) syntax for defining a returning table. > > Or if we might want to add multiple items in the EXCEPT clause in the > > future we can have parentheses around all exclusion items as follow: > > > > 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; > > I agree those alternatives could work, but one downside is the redundant use > of > "TABLE" when many tables are excluded. If we want to stay consistent with the > existing style, perhaps we could write it as: > > ``` > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCPET (TABLE t1, t2, t3); > ``` > > Because we have already been accepting the syntax like "FOR TABLE t1, t2, t3". > Yeah, we can omit the TABLE keyword for the second and subsequent tables. My whole point is that using different syntaxes for the inclusion list and the exclusion list would quite confuse users. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
