On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 12:17 PM Peter Smith <[email protected]> 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.
