On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 12:17 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> //////////
> v12-0002
>
> ======
> doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_publication.sgml
>
> 1.
> + <para>
> + For <literal>FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal> publications, the
> + <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause is schema-scoped. If a table listed in
> + the <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause is later moved to a different schema
> + using <command>ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA</command>, the exclusion is
> + removed; the table will then be published if its new schema is part of a
> + publication. If the table is subsequently moved back to the original
> + schema, the exclusion is not restored, and must be re-established
> + explicitly using <command>ALTER PUBLICATION</command>. Dropping a table
> + always removes it from the <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause,
> regardless of
> + publication type.
> + </para>
>
>
> I think the sentence "If the table is subsequently moved back..." is
> overkill, and does not need to be said. The prior info "the exclusion
> is removed" already tells me the exclusion is gone, and I think is
> reasonable to assume "removed" means that it is gone for good, with no
> ambiguity that it might magically come back.
>
> YMMV. Leave it as-is if you prefer.
>
I feel it is okay to keep the proposed sentence to avoid any ambiguity
by the user to consider the schema-scope state is symmetric.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
