RE: Follow-up review items for update_deleted

On Friday, September 4, 2026 8:03 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I am still reviewing patch001; for patch 002 I have one comment. I feel the
> following information should be added as a CAUTION or under the existing
> WARNING section similar to how we explain the data-acuumulation fact
> under CAUTION section for for retain_dead_tuples GUC.
>
> max_retention_duration
> If the
> + subscription is disabled, or its apply worker is not running, the
> + retention duration is not evaluated and the information for conflict
> + detection continues to accumulate regardless of this setting. In that
> + case retention can only be stopped by disabling
> + <literal>retain_dead_tuples</literal>.
> ------------
>
> Also, shall we change it slightly to:
>
> Note that the retention duration is not evaluated while the subscription is
> disabled or its apply worker is not running. Thus, the information retained for
> conflict detection will continue to accumulate regardless of this setting until
> the subscription is enabled or its apply worker resumes. To prevent excessive
> accumulation, consider disabling <literal>retain_dead_tuples</literal>
> if the subscription will be inactive for an extended period.

Thanks for the comments.

I've added the suggested content to the CAUTION section in the new version of
the patch.

Best Regards,
Zhijie Hou