Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

PFA, updated version of the patch, fixes all the comments of V57

Open comments

1. Need more thought on converting to JSONB column
2. Shveta's comments on saving the results of the common query is not
yet fixed, I will put more thought on this.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google