Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shvetamalik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date: 2026-05-27 08:34:37
Message-ID: CALDaNm34KVZvOtJcoJPYqZHwKreTa51xefKGhUYFOvVDFbeVRQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 15:08, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:13 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v39 version patch has the
> > changes for the same.
> >
>
> I have not yet looked at v40, but please find a few ocmments on
> v39-0001 and 0002 merged together.
> 4)
> Do we need to have CommandCounterIncrement() after
> heap_create_with_catalog() in create_conflict_log_table()? I think
> even if we are not doing any table_open etc for CLT in same
> transaction, we should call CommandCounterIncrement() (to be
> consistent with other such calls of heap_create_with_catalog and to
> make it future proof). Thoughts?

I felt this is not required as we are not doing a table open on the
newly created table.

I have fixed the rest of the comments. The attached v41 version patch
has the changes for the same. Additionally the comments from [1] have
also been fixed.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPvB3rUs2ccUxJ1q1YEmvtHN3HJGSEjT4Cbc%3D5pjoGO9Yg%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Vignesh

Attachment Content-Type Size
v41-0004-Review-comment-fixes-for-transfer-ownership-patc.patch application/octet-stream 4.4 KB
v41-0003-transfer-ownership.patch application/octet-stream 2.0 KB
v41-0005-Implement-the-conflict-insertion-infrastructure-.patch application/octet-stream 28.6 KB
v41-0001-Add-configurable-conflict-log-table-for-Logical-.patch application/octet-stream 121.3 KB
v41-0002-Review-comment-fixes-for-Add-configurable-confli.patch application/octet-stream 121.1 KB
v41-0006-Review-comment-fixes-for-Implement-the-conflict-.patch application/octet-stream 16.8 KB
v41-0007-Preserve-conflict-log-destination-and-subscripti.patch application/octet-stream 21.2 KB
v41-0010-Add-conflict-log-table-information-to-describe-s.patch application/octet-stream 77.7 KB
v41-0009-Review-comment-fixes-for-Documentation-patch.patch application/octet-stream 44.7 KB
v41-0008-Documentation-patch.patch application/octet-stream 11.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2026-05-27 08:56:57 PGConf.dev CSN unconference session: notes and follow-up discussion takeaways
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-05-27 08:28:23 Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race