On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 12:11 PM Philip Alger <paalger0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > >
>> > > 3.
>> > > It would be better if the the rows of "Table 9.96" were in alphabetical order.
>> >
>> > I think that this should be done in a different patch when all or a big
>> > part of the functions are merged.
>> >
>>
>> FYI, I've created another thread [1] to address those things above,
>>
>> ======
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut+Pun9Z8qZFJTa9fLgdhM=Cip9d-cnx2YXDW6eFrSwbQj1g@mail.gmail.com
>>
>
> It's a good idea, but the author of this patch should either fix it or you should propose your patch after this one
iscommitted. Otherwise, you're going to make the author create another version based on a fix you already suggested for
thecurrent patch.
>
The other thread patch is addressing things already in PG19 docs.
OTOH, this pg_publication_ddl patch is introducing a new function for
PG20. I'd expect my PG19 patch to be pushed first, but who knows. A
committer will determine that. Or maybe it will be rejected, and not
be pushed at all.
Yes, whatever patch is pushed first will mean the other one will need
rebasing, but that's just a normal part of the process. For example,
already this pg_publication_ddl thread is in a race with the other
publication EXCEPT syntax enhancement threads to see who gets pushed
first....and whoever comes second will have some extra rebasing work
to do to enhance this DDL function. C'est la vie.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
