Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: 2026-04-24 10:18:37
Message-ID: CAFiTN-s4_8T_0LMTT8KXfwQv55Ci31eu5MAJveCRtOV=fWaG8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:42 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 3:21 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Nisha for the review. All your comments make sense so I have
> > fixed them in the latest patch.
> >
>
> Hi Dilip,
>
> Before we resume review, could you summarize any pending design points
> (if any) from our last discussion? Sorry, I have lost track, a summary
> will help.

Thanks Shveta, IIRC, there were no open design point, the last problem
were related to user should not be able to modify the internally
created conflict log table and for that we designed a pg_conflict
schema. So maybe we can dig a bit deeper on this part related to
whether we are ensuring all right sort of permissions on this schema.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2026-04-24 10:24:35 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2026-04-24 09:29:45 Re: Bug: Missing check_stack_depth() in GRAPH_TABLE rewriter