Re: REASSIGN OWNED vs. relisshared dep on !relisshared

On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 07:09:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 10:11 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2026-07-18 at 12:10 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:06 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
> > > > To address Noah's concern: is the concern about the dependency
> > > > link, or
> > > > about having a database-specific oid in a shared catalog at all?
> > ...
> > > I feel it is the latter as the former doesn't scale well, since each
> > > new db-specific column would need its own bespoke handling instead of
> > > the dependency machinery handling it uniformly. I agree with your
> > > judgement that it is not a good idea to tackle this in v19,
> > > especially
> > > because splitting a shared, user-visible catalog is too
> > > invasive to land safely this late in the cycle, whereas the
> > > subdbid-scoping fix already resolves the actual bug at low risk,
> > > leaving the decomposition as a structural cleanup better suited to
> > > v20.
> >
> > OK, should we go ahead and split the pg_subscription catalog for v20
> > then? Maybe pg_subscription (shared) and pg_subscription_db (per-
> > database)?
> >
>
> +1, though I am not sure of catalog names. We can brainstorm those
> during development.

That works for me. I agree an untracked dependency would be worse than the
status quo and worse than splitting the catalog. I don't have a strong
objection to the status quo.