Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(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>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date: 2026-06-25 13:07:06
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KfT-+FtUqd6iqYvghxBUcW4_1iP29bBGC-3QRdyeP7kQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:30 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 4:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 2.
> > @@ -2482,6 +2681,8 @@ DropSubscription(DropSubscriptionStmt *stmt,
> > bool isTopLevel)
> > deleteDependencyRecordsFor(SubscriptionRelationId, subid, false);
> > deleteSharedDependencyRecordsFor(SubscriptionRelationId, subid, 0);
> >
> > + drop_sub_conflict_log_table(subid, subname, subconflictlogrelid);
> >
> > It would be better to drop the table before cleaning up the dependency
> > record. Right now, it is okay even in current order because dependency
> > removal is trying to remove where subid is depender.
>
> So whats your suggestion change it now or not? I feel either way is fine.
>

Let's change now itself.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Emanuele 2026-06-25 13:14:44 Re: Out-of-Cycle release? (was Re: BUG #19490: Streaming standby on 16.14 stops applying WAL on MultiXactOffsetSLRU when primary is 16.8)
Previous Message Ayush Tiwari 2026-06-25 13:05:01 Re: plpython: NULL pointer dereference on broken sequence objects