On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:55 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:52 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:12 AM Nisha Moond <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Hackers, > > > > > > As Peter noted in [1], the ALTER PUBLICATION documentation is missing > > > a parameter description for the EXCEPT clause. Ref: Commit fd36606 > > > introduced the EXCEPT clause. > > > > > > Attached is a simple patch to document the clause and its behavior. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs3sghX4qv1jehqMgvZG7DmUoAFqgjmVc5xUy%2Bv5kHN3w%40mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > The patch LGTM. > >
Thanks for the review. > > I have one more point to discuss. The EXCEPT implementation also > > introduced a new ALTER-PUB variation where users can convert an ALL > > TABLE to ALL SEQ and vice versa. We have not explained that anywhere. > > I am not sure if a one-line explanation can be added. If not, I think > > we can at-least add an example at the end for the same. Thoughts? > > > > The existing examples are: > > > > ~~ > > Replace the table list in the publication's EXCEPT clause: > > ALTER PUBLICATION mypublication SET ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE users, > > departments); > > > > Reset the publication to be a FOR ALL TABLES publication with no > > excluded tables: > > ALTER PUBLICATION mypublication SET ALL TABLES; > > ~~ > > > > We can add one more: > > Convert an ALL TABLES publication to ALL SEQUENCES one: > > ALTER PUBLICATION mypublication SET ALL SEQUENCES; > > > > Okay, I see we already have this line in doc in initial explanation: > > The SET ALL TABLES clause can transform an empty publication, or one > defined for ALL SEQUENCES (or both ALL TABLES and ALL SEQUENCES), into > a publication defined for ALL TABLES. Likewise, SET ALL SEQUENCES can > convert an empty publication, or one defined for ALL TABLES (or both > ALL TABLES and ALL SEQUENCES), into a publication defined for ALL > SEQUENCES. > ~~ > > So please ignore my comment about a one-line explanation. An example > may be added though (if others also think so). > I have added the suggested example in v2. I think it can remain in the same patch, but let me know if you'd prefer it as a separate patch. -- Thanks, Nisha
