Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(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>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shvetamalik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date: 2026-05-25 04:18:43
Message-ID: CAJpy0uDjr2u-+GDwSeLMrz=E8m8ViCz2J4WPPo8Qy0k0pbCJYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 9:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:01 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Amit, Vignesh,
> >
> > A part of 007 patch is about preserving subscription-oid. Another
> > thread (origin migration) also needs the same logic as per discussion
> > at [1]. And there was a old thread which already attempted preserving
> > subscription-oid at [2], but the idea was rejected at that time. Why
> > don't we attempt to resume the same thread ([2]) and implement
> > preserving subscription-oid as a separate thread as we now have
> > multiple dependencies on it? Thoughts?
> >
>
> Agreed, but I think we can move the discussion/review to a separate
> thread. However, at this stage, we can make initial patches ready and
> then move to it.
>

Okay, works for me.

thanks
Shveta

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2026-05-25 04:42:53 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message shveta malik 2026-05-25 04:11:38 Re: effective_wal_level is not decreasing after using REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)