| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Date: | 2025-08-22 15:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uCAn_0r14D6Bc=C8iuci1d8Bme7DrC8rXAeDz++DXC4YQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration' to
> > > 'max_conflict_info_retention_duration' as the latter one is more
> > > clear?
> > >
> >
> > Before bikeshedding on the name of this option, I would like us to
> > once again consider whether we should provide this option at
> > subscription-level or GUC?
> >
>
> Now that we decided that we would like to go with the subscription
> option. The other alternative to name this new option could be
> max_retention_duration. The explanation should clarify that it is used
> with the retain_dead_tuples option. I think the other proposed names
> appear a bit long to me.
>
'max_retention_duration' looks good to me.
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-22 15:50:52 | Re: misleading error message in ProcessUtilitySlow T_CreateStatsStmt |
| Previous Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-08-22 15:41:25 | Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative |