Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: Nikhil Shetty <nikhil(dot)dba04(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(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: 2026-06-19 13:26:22
Message-ID: CAFpL5Vx-HAhMhJ-m9b71APrZpwsDwzZzMFWr3figau2mef-__g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I see, thanks for the clarification.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 18:07, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 5:57 PM Nikhil Shetty <nikhil(dot)dba04(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dilip,
> >
> > I was just testing this patch.I was thinking if we can have another
> column which stores the timestamp when the conflict happened. This will be
> useful for debugging purposes.
> >
>
> We discussed this earlier and plan to consider potential approaches
> once base-patch is committed. See the discussiosn around [1] and [2].
>
> [1]:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uC54cxVYNRTfFXY_986-54HTVDNE1srn_Z9pGGDYhDjcw%40mail.gmail.com
> [2]:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J0PJHR8XMx3zRyBkhVHkKAcMfqXT20t0E8qievY81LOw%40mail.gmail.com
>
> thanks
> Shveta
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zakariyah Ali 2026-06-19 13:26:44 Re: [PATCH] Fix missing-field-initializers and sign comparison warnings
Previous Message Rafia Sabih 2026-06-19 12:38:08 Re: postgres_fdw: Emit message when batch_size is reduced