On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 11:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Okay, I have kept this para as-it-is.
The other comments on v12-0001 from [1] have also been addressed.
Please find the updated v13 patches attached.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPv-GA1oGa6%2Bnwn_5AVhBg8NuJThQVUzqhQPXJge49jnew%40mail.gmail.com
--
Thanks,
Nisha
