Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:35 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Below are my review comments for v5-0002.
>
> There may be an overlap with comments recently posted by Osumi-san [1].
>
> (I also have review comments for v5-0002; will post them tomorrow)
>
> ======
>
> 1. General
>
> Is it really necessary to have to say "EXCEPT TABLE" instead of just
> "EXCEPT". It seems unnecessarily verbose and redundant when you write
> "FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE...".
>
> If you want to keep this TABLE keyword (maybe you have plans for other
> kinds of except?)
>

I don't think there is an immediate plan but one can imagine using
EXCEPT SCHEMA. Then for column lists, one may want to use the syntax
Create Publication pub1 For Table t1 Except Cols (c1, ..);

> then IMO perhaps at least it can be the optional
> default except type. e.g. EXCEPT [TABLE].
>

Yeah, that might be okay, so, even if we plan to extend this in the
future, by default we will consider the list of tables after EXCEPT
but if the user mentions EXCEPT SCHEMA or something else then we can
use a different object. Is that sound okay?

>
> 3. General
>
> The ONLY keyword seems supported by the syntax for tables of the
> except-list (more on this in later comments) but:
> a) I am not sure if the patch code is accounting for that, and
> b) There are no test cases using ONLY.
>
> ~~~
>

Isn't it better to map ONLY with the way it can already be specified
in CREATE PUBLICATION? I am not sure what exactly is proposed and what
is your suggestion? Can you please explain if it is different from the
way we use it for CREATE PUBLICATION?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.