| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(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> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Date: | 2025-12-02 05:15:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JOVXhSbY1=isXfCXnEvG7pzZDFftts+Xy7hTXXf-d5ag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 3:46 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 4:47 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 3)
> > Do we need to have a timestamp column as well to say when conflict was
> > recorded? Or local_commit_ts, remote_commit_ts are sufficient?
> > Thoughts
>
> You mean we can record the timestamp now while inserting, not sure if
> it will add some more meaningful information than remote_commit_ts,
> but let's see what others think.
>
local_commit_ts and remote_commit_ts sounds sufficient as one can
identify the truth of information from those two. The key/schema
values displayed in this table could change later but the information
about a particular row is based on the time shown by those two
columns.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-12-02 05:36:50 | Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-12-02 05:07:41 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |