On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 10:35, Shlok Kyal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 18:12, Shlok Kyal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 15:12, shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 10:48 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 12:33 AM Shlok Kyal <[email protected]> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vignesh and Shveta,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for reviewing the patches.
> > > > > I have addressed the comments and attached the updated patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > This also addressed the comments shared by Shveta in [1].
> > > > > [1]: 
> > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uDU0PrH=gvFZjpphOX7t=2jH5wTqYry=C22vnuJJ9Q5=g...@mail.gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please find few comments on 001 and 002:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > v-001:
> > > > 1)
> > > > - List    *except_tables; /* tables specified in the EXCEPT clause */
> > > > + List    *except_relations; /* relations specified in the EXCEPT
> > > > + * clause */
> > > > Since we have not changed the comments for anything else in patch001,
> > > > we can keep this comment too same as old and changeit in 002.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > v-002:
> > > > 2)
> > > > pg_publication_rel's prrelid doc says:
> > > > Reference to table
> > > > We shall change it now to 'Reference to table or sequence'
> > > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > In doc, do we eed to change pg_publication_rel's prqual too? IMO, it
> > > > is not applicable to sequence and thus we can change 'relation' to
> > > > 'table' in explanation..
> > > >
> > > > 4)
> > > >        Marks the publication as one that synchronizes changes for all 
> > > > sequences
> > > > -      in the database, including sequences created in the future.
> > > > +      in the database, including sequences created in the future. 
> > > > Sequences
> > > > +      listed in <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause are excluded from the
> > > > +      publication.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should place it the end of second paragraph rather than at
> > > > the end of first. How about something liek this:
> > > >
> > > > Marks the publication as one that synchronizes changes for all
> > > > sequences in the database, including sequences created in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Only persistent sequences are included in the publication. Temporary
> > > > sequences and unlogged sequences are excluded from the publication.
> > > > Sequences listed in EXCEPT clause are also excluded from the
> > > > publication.
> > > >
> > > > 5)
> > > > +      In such a case, a table or partition or sequence that is 
> > > > included in one
> > > > +      publication but excluded (explicitly or implicitly) by the
> > > > +      <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause of another is considered 
> > > > included for
> > > > +      replication.
> > > >
> > > > 'a table or partition or sequence' can be changed to 'a table,
> > > > partition, or sequence'
> > > >
> > > > 6)
> > > > In existign doc, shall we give example of publication creation for
> > > > both tables and sequences, each having its except list? This is
> > > > important to show that EXCEPT to be given with individual ALL OBJ. We
> > > > can cahnge last example of doc file to make this. This one:
> > > > 'Create a publication that publishes all sequences for
> > > > synchronization, and all changes in all tables except users and
> > > > departments:'
> > > >
> > > > 7)
> > > > getPublications:
> > > > + * Get the list of tables/sequences for publications specified in the
> > > > + * EXCEPT clause.
> > > >
> > > > We can have both tables and sequences in single publication. We should 
> > > > change
> > > >
> > > > 'tables/sequences' --> tables and sequences
> > > >
> > > > 8)
> > > > In describePublications(),
> > > >
> > > > We had:
> > > > if (!puballtables)
> > > > else
> > > >   * Get tables in the EXCEPT clause for this publication */
> > > >
> > > > now we have added:
> > > > if (puballsequences)
> > > >  /* Get sequences in the EXCEPT clause for this publication */
> > > >
> > > > Since now we can hit this function for 'all-seq' pub too, shall we
> > > > change if-block's condition to:
> > > >
> > > > if (!puballtables && !puballsequences)
> > > >
> > > > and else-block to
> > > >
> > > > else if (puballtables)
> > > >
> > > > otherwise all-seq case will unnecessary enter these blocks and will
> > > > exceute the logic
> > > >
> > > > Please review other functions too in pg_dump to see if we need such
> > > > conditions altering.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 9)
> > > > +# Check the initial data on subscriber
> > > > +$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
> > > > + "SELECT last_value, is_called FROM seq1");
> > > > +is($result, '200|t', 'sequences in EXCEPT list is excluded');
> > > > +
> > > > +$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
> > > > + "SELECT last_value, is_called FROM seq2");
> > > > +is($result, '200|t', 'initial test data replicated for seq2');
> > > >
> > > > Since both are replicated now because of conflicting EXCEPT in
> > > > multi-pub, shall we change
> > > > comment in 'is(..)'?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For v-003, one trivial thing:
> > >
> > > Shall we change the name of AlterPublicationTables() as well? It now
> > > deals in both tables and sequences.
> > >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patch. I agree that we should change the name
> > here. Modified the patch.
> >
> > I have also addressed the remaining comments by you and Vignesh in [1], 
> > [2], [3]
> > Attached the updated version.
> >
> > [1]: 
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caldanm2pgi3fakn+x+10nqfknhoudmwegqt_ttjlbvz04f3...@mail.gmail.com
> > [2]: 
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cajpy0ubb4n8korhchdgprvi2ws1+gtcer+bc2a_ziahoczc...@mail.gmail.com
> > [3]: 
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caldanm1brq1s9na_gwlwn3byer9be+4qnn4v8sdjimuvao2...@mail.gmail.com
>
> I noticed that CFbot is failling.
> The test case in this patch needs to be updated due to changes
> introduced by the recent commit 2e1d4fd.
> I have made the change and attached the updated patch. I have also
> made some cosmetic changes.
>
The patch needed a rebase after commit a49b9cf.
Attached the rebased patches.

Thanks,
Shlok Kyal

Attachment: v5-0003-Support-EXCEPT-for-ALL-SEQUENCES-in-ALTER-PUBLICA.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: v5-0001-Rename-identifiers-to-use-generic-relation-orient.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: v5-0002-Support-EXCEPT-for-ALL-SEQUENCES-in-CREATE-PUBLIC.patch
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to