Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:01 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 9:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 9:51 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:08 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > Also I would like to know which one is better here:
> > > >
> > > > \dRs+ giving 'Conflict log table' in tabular format (current way)
> > > >
> > > > Or giving it as 'Conflict log table' at the end, like:
> > > >
> > > > Conflict Log Table:
> > > > "pg_conflict.pg_conflict_16395"
> > > >
> > > > I’m slightly inclined toward option 2, similar to how \dRp shows
> > > > “Tables” and “Except tables” at the end; it catches the eye faster.
> > > > But I don't have a strong opinion here. I'd be interested to hear what
> > > > others think.
> > >
> > > I am not completely convinced, but I don't have a strong opinion
> > > against it, so as you said, let's hear from others as well.
> > >
> >
> > Is there a need to even show the CLT name? We create origin also as
> > part of subscription but don't display its name in this command.
> >
>
> I think the difference is that replication origins are mostly internal
> replication state and users do not typically interact with them
> directly, so not displaying them in this command seems reasonable. In
> contrast, the conflict log table is a user-visible relation that users
> may query directly for diagnostics and statistics, so it may make
> sense to show it for quick reference.
>

Fair point. We can use the second format mentioned by you:
Conflict Log Table:
"pg_conflict.pg_conflict_16395"

But better to keep 'Log Table' and 'log table' similar to the existing
usage as follows:
Tables from schemas:
"public"

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.