Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: Zhijie Hou <houzhijie22(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, saurabh singh <saurabh(dot)singh214(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shvetamalik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date: 2026-11-04 08:05:23
Message-ID: 4eb2f6b6-a1dd-4f01-9e5c-1aea25f85dc1@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2026 at 12:35 PM shveta malik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2026 at 8:07 PM Zhijie Hou <houzhijie22(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the V90 patch set, which addresses the comments we agreed on,
>> including Narayanan's latest comment.
>
> Hou-san, the only change I see in 001 is this:
>
> - if (remote_commit_ts > 0)
> + if (remote_commit_ts != 0)
>
> Are there supposed to be more changes (that we missed posting), or is
> that the only one?

Yes, that's the only change. Sawada-san's other comments related to 2pc
are still under discussion, and the 64-bit xid comment is under
investigation.

--
Best Regards,
Zhijie Hou

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Jones 2026-11-04 08:06:14 Re: Reject access to unlogged tables in contrib modules
Previous Message Lukas Fittl 2026-11-04 07:49:03 Re: Fix cumulative WAL statistics double-counting from parallel workers