On Sunday, February 8, 2026, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 6:41 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Amit.
>
> I understand there can be some tricky scenarios where partitions are
> involved, but I was not sure why "pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1)
> and pub2: FOR TABLE tab1" is an example of contradictory behaviour.
>
> Consider if the publisher has 3 tables tab1,tab2,tab3:
> Here, "pub1: FOR ALL Tables EXCEPT (tab1)" is like a shorthand for
> saying "pub1: FOR TABLE tab2,tab3"
> So what's wrong for the subscriber to combine pub1 and pub2 in this case?
>
It is because one of the publications (pub2) indicates to include a
particular table tab1 and the other one (pub1) to exclude the same
table. And things become much more complex when the Except list
contains partitions as shown in Shveta's example. So, I think it makes
sense to keep things simple at least for the first version, we can
consider to uplift this restriction if we see some use cases from the
field.
I’m with Peter here - I do not think it is wise to expose the exception listing outside the publication. Publication combinations should be purely additive in much the same way grants are in the system. Except lists are internal shorthand for describing the positive list of tables a publication makes available - all tables except.
David J.
