On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:06 PM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 2:36 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > No, I don't think this is a bug for PG19 and the new behaviour for > > > PG20 is intentional and required because in this case, the EXCEPT > > > clause is schema-scoped, so once schema is changed, the table should > > > be removed from the exclusion list. OTOH, in PG19, the exclusion list > > > follows the table-level exclusion based on its OID as we can see in > > > the example provided by you. I think we can consider adding a line for > > > this in docs if you and others feel that such explicit mention can > > > avoid ambiguity around this. How about something like the following as > > > a separate para in EXCEPT clause description: Once a table is > > > excluded, the exclusion applies to that table itself, regardless of > > > its name or schema. Renaming the table or moving it to another schema > > > with <command>ALTER TABLE ... SET SCHEMA</command> does not cancel the > > > exclusion." > > > > > > > OK. The explanatory text LGTM. > > > > What's the next step? Should I create a new thread/patch to deal with this? > > > > WFM. >
Done. See new thread/patch [1]. ====== [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHut%2BPvQ5BqnawCQd6r1tqqd%2BiAJC-CuRY8wscuXSrpHGUzofA%40mail.gmail.com Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
