| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Narayanan Venkateswaran <narayananvpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, saurabh singh <saurabh(dot)singh214(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Date: | 2026-10-01 04:14:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uDcoQCmdrXqEank8FcWTzmrch7_WB_ZagcwR66yHzsdzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 6:53 PM Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> I think there may be some misunderstanding about what the
> >> replica_identity_full column actually stores. This question was also
> >> raised earlier; please see [1] and the discussion that followed. This
> >> field indicates the subscriber’s actual search method.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for clarifying the intended design and also the pointer to the old thread.
> >
> > I understand now that the intention for `replica_identity_full` is to indicate whether the conflicting row was located via a specific replica key index (`false`) versus a full-tuple search (`true`), rather than reflecting the DDL catalog property (pg_class.relreplident).
> >
>
> I think the docs can be improved to avoid this confusion, as Vignesh
> also suggested earlier in [1]. How about updating it to:
> "Indicates whether the conflicting local row was located using the
> full tuple (true) or the replica identity key of the local table
> (false)."
>
> Let me know if this works for you.
+1
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-10-01 04:16:01 | Re: Fix apply worker crash when subscriber table has only a deferrable primary key |
| Previous Message | shihao zhong | 2026-10-01 03:45:48 | Re: Correct documentation for protocol version |