Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 4:36 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 5:38 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 31 May 2026 at 11:43, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 2:57 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 1:34 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 15:08, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:13 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the comments, the attached v39 version patch has the
> > > > > > > changes for the same.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have not yet looked at v40, but please find a few ocmments on
> > > > > > v39-0001 and 0002 merged together.
> > > > > > 4)
> > > > > > Do we need to have CommandCounterIncrement() after
> > > > > > heap_create_with_catalog() in create_conflict_log_table()? I think
> > > > > > even if we are not doing any table_open etc for CLT in same
> > > > > > transaction, we should call CommandCounterIncrement() (to be
> > > > > > consistent with other such calls of heap_create_with_catalog and to
> > > > > > make it future proof). Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > I felt this is not required as we are not doing a table open on the
> > > > > newly created table.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, command counter increment would be required here if we further
> > > > access that relation in the same command. I think I am facing a
> > > > related problem w.r.t newly created subscription. After applying first
> > > > six patches, the create subscription fails as follows:
> > > > postgres=# create subscription sub1 connection 'dbname=postgres'
> > > > publication pub1 with (conflict_log_destination='all');
> > > > ERROR: dependent subscription was concurrently dropped
> > > >
> > > > I debugged and found that we get the above ERROR when we are trying to
> > > > find the subscription which is not yet created. In this case, it seems
> > > > to be happening because we are using a subscription that is yet not
> > > > created for dependency recording. This raises a question as to why are
> > > > we creating the conflict_log_table before subscription, at least this
> > > > needs some comments.
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > > + if (mask & (ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE | ACL_USAGE))
> > > > + {
> > > > + if (IsConflictLogTableClass(classForm))
> > > > + {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * For conflict log tables, allow non-superusers to perform
> > > > + * DELETE and TRUNCATE for cleanup and maintenance. Also allow
> > > > + * INSERT and UPDATE to pass ACL checks so that later checks
> > > > + * can raise the dedicated "cannot modify or insert data into
> > > > + * conflict log table" error instead of a generic permission
> > > > + * denied error. Still restrict USAGE for non-superusers.
> > > > + */
> > > > + mask &= ~(ACL_USAGE);
> > > >
> > > > I see the point of giving a specific error instead of a generic error
> > > > but this functionality is used by pg_class_aclmask() which is an
> > > > exposed function. If we go with your proposed change, isn't there a
> > > > risk that some extension or outside core-code using pg_class_aclmask()
> > > > won't invoke that later functionality (CheckValidResultRel())? If we
> > > > decide to go this way then we can change this comment as proposed in
> > > > the attached?
> > >
> > > I do not understand this change; my original patch 0001 has like this,
> > > that mean we are only allowing ACL_TRUNCATE and ACL_DELETE for
> > > conflict log table, whats the reason for changing the same in 0002?
> > >
> > > if ((mask & (ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE |
> > > ACL_USAGE)) &&
> > > - IsSystemClass(table_oid, classForm) &&
> > > - classForm->relkind != RELKIND_VIEW &&
> > > + IsConflictClass(classForm) &&
> > > !superuser_arg(roleid))
> > > - mask &= ~(ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE | ACL_USAGE);
> > > + mask &= ~(ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_USAGE);
> > > + else if ((mask & (ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE |
> > > ACL_TRUNCATE | ACL_USAGE)) &&
> > > + IsSystemClass(table_oid, classForm) &&
> > > + classForm->relkind != RELKIND_VIEW &&
> > > + !superuser_arg(roleid))
> > > + mask &= ~(ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE | ACL_USAGE);
> >
> > This was done to fix Shveta's comments from [1] to throw "cannot
> > modify or insert data into conflict log table" instead of a generic
> > permission denied error for the owner of the conflict log table.
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uANkzTyUjO2W0=RtaJCGg=VYcwLGGCpqax=zKJgNbB0Hw@mail.gmail.com
>
> Thanks for pointing it, I will analyze this behavior and give my opinion.

While thinking more about this, wouldn't the behaviour is same as
pg_toast table, I mean, the superuser will get "cannot change TOAST
relation "pg_toast_16404" whereas the owner of the toast will get a
permission denied error?

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google