Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:20 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:38 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
> > 1)
> > heap_create:
> > + errdetail("Conflict schema modifications are currently disallowed.")));
> > LookupCreationNamespace:
> > + errmsg("cannot move objects into or out of the pg_conflict schema")));
> >
> > Can we make it same through-out, either we use 'Conflict schema' at
> > both the places or pg_conflict schema. Since in these 2 functions, in
> > previous messages, we are using names like 'System catalog', 'TOAST
> > schema' etc, I think we can use Conflict schema at both the places.
> > What do others think on this?
> >
>
> The suggested name of "Conflict schema" LGTM. My only concern was that
> a user may not know where that is referring to. OTOH, things like
> "System catalog" have 100s of mentions and whole documentation
> chapters dedicated to them. If we go with "Conflict schema", then the
> documentation needs to also consistently use that term, describe what
> it is for, and make it very easy to look up and discover that
> "Conflict schema" is 'pg_conflict'.

I agree that if we use 'Conflict schema' in the error messages, we
need to refer it the same way in doc. Let's wait for others' opinions
on this too.

>
> Currently (in patches 0008/9) there is very little explanation even
> about what pg_conflict is, apart from just observing in passing that
> the CLT gets written to that "dedicated namespace". It seems a bit
> backwards describing the parent schema by the contents: Instead of
> saying when there is a CLT it gets written there, IMO it should be the
> other way around, and say there is a "Conflict schema" which is where
> the CLTs (if any) reside.

Yes, the suggestion makes sense. I will look at the doc patch again for this.

thanks
Shveta