Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Date: 2025-06-11 08:46:02
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+WxKs9okKPDkn3jPqy1MtfBAiXJ22LLfBwPTACwADC-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:55 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Here is the V35 patch set which includes the following changes:
>

Few minor comments:
===================
1.
+Â * Check if the subscriber's configuration is adequate to enable the
+Â * retain_conflict_info option.

I see some funny characters in patch 0003.

2.
+static void
+drop_conflict_slot_if_exists(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * Avoid the overhead of scanning shared memory for a replication slot
+ * that is known to have been dropped.
+ */
+ if (conflict_slot_dropped)
+ return;

This new variable used here looks odd to me. Do you think we can avoid this?

Apart from this, I have made a number of cosmetic changes in the
attached. Kindly include these in the next version, if these look okay
to you. Also, I think we can combine 0001 and 0002 at this stage, as
both are looking in good shape now.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v35_amit_1.txt text/plain 6.3 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-06-11 09:08:53 Re: Possibly hard-to-read message
Previous Message Tatsuro Yamada 2025-06-11 08:36:58 Re: Add enable_groupagg GUC parameter to control GroupAggregate usage