| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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: | 2026-05-12 09:21:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J0PJHR8XMx3zRyBkhVHkKAcMfqXT20t0E8qievY81LOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 12:00 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I had earlier suggested a timestamp column (pt 3 at [1]) to record
> conflict-occurence time (mainly 'conflict_logged_at' column) in CLT
> but the idea was kept on hold awaiting more feedback. Now we can
> revisit this.
>
> I feel 'conflict_logged_at' could be more beneficial because, going
> forward (based on feedback), we may range-partition this table on that
> field which may form as basis of historical data purge. I also
> suggested this in [2] (see 'That said, irrespective of what we
> decide') . Such a field could be basis of purging mechanism.
>
Fair enough. We can extend the table with this field after more
discussion, so it will be better to pick up this discussion once the
base feature is committed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-05-12 09:26:25 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-05-12 09:19:15 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |