Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 5:10 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 5:04 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 2)
> > When we do below:
> > alter subscription sub1 SET (conflict_log_table=clt2);
> >
> > the previous conflict log table is dropped. Is this behavior
> > intentional and discussed/concluded earlier? It’s possible that a user
> > may want to create a new conflict log table for future events while
> > still retaining the old one for analysis. If the subscription itself
> > is dropped, then dropping the CLT makes sense, but I’m not sure this
> > behavior is intended for ALTER SUBSCRIPTION. I do understand that
> > once we unlink CLT from subscription, later even DROP subscription
> > cannot drop it, but user can always drop it when not needed.
> >
> > If we plan to keep existing behavior, it should be clearly documented
> > in a CAUTION section, and the command should explicitly log the table
> > drop.
>
> Yeah we discussed this behavior and the conclusion was we would
> document this behavior and its user's responsibility to take necessary
> backup of the conflict log table data if they are setting a new log
> table or NONE for the subscription.
>

+1. If we don't do this then it will be difficult to track for
postgres or users the previous conflict history tables.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.