Either rename has_any_exclusion to has_any_exception or, given how ambiguous that reads in code, maybe standardize on calling these exclusions throughout the code and either just accept we've chosen EXCEPT for the syntax for good reasons or consider whether to EXCLUDING (table1, table2) would be a better choice.
+ errmsg("could not get non excluded table list for table \"%s.%s\" from publisher: %s", -- triple negative; try to avoid "non excluded" as a term - those are "included".
pg_get_publication_effective_tables - the second input argument is an array of publication names so the singular form here is a bit misleading. Should this be subscription-oriented? Otherwise, pg_get_tables_from_publications seems like a more accurate name. "effective" or "only the included ones" seems reasonable to imply.
Related, the check in there for "does at least one publication have an exclusion list" makes sense but feels awfully similar to the check for "at most one publication has an exclusion list"...too late for me to figure out what if anything to do make/do about it though.
