| 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>, 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>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shvetamalik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Date: | 2026-05-23 15:40:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K38QO-T19WKtdm5FgfyW-e-ZX6uT9yuJuteNAzt=xcNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:01 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Amit, Vignesh,
>
> A part of 007 patch is about preserving subscription-oid. Another
> thread (origin migration) also needs the same logic as per discussion
> at [1]. And there was a old thread which already attempted preserving
> subscription-oid at [2], but the idea was rejected at that time. Why
> don't we attempt to resume the same thread ([2]) and implement
> preserving subscription-oid as a separate thread as we now have
> multiple dependencies on it? Thoughts?
>
Agreed, but I think we can move the discussion/review to a separate
thread. However, at this stage, we can make initial patches ready and
then move to it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-05-23 15:51:41 | Re: Fix pg_stat_wal_receiver to show CONNECTING status |
| Previous Message | Jonathan Gonzalez V. | 2026-05-23 15:31:57 | Re: splitting pg_resetwal output strings |