RE: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(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>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(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: 2026-08-23 08:15:36
Message-ID: TY4PR01MB177187F9925FBC1A7213CA4C294A12@TY4PR01MB17718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday, August 21, 2026 6:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 8:15 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > One more thing 0001 could potentially do is replace the existing
> > references to stream_xid with ApplyRemoteCtx.remote_xid. It's not done
> > in the patch yet, but can be if we reach consensus.
> >
>
> We can do this without breaking anything but this doesn't sound
> fundamentally correct. Because stream_xid is valid only inside a STREAM
> START/STOP block whereas remote_ctx.remote_xid is valid for the whole
> transaction(including the COMMIT/PREPARE/ABORT phase), and is used for
> non-streamed transactions. So remote_xid is deliberately valid at moments
> when stream_xid is deliberately Invalid. So, I suggest leaving this as it is.
>
> I have made few changes in 0001 refactor patch (a) Change the mix use of
> errarg and remote_ctx in apply_error_callback as that looks confusing, instead
> used a shorter variable name ctx so that some of the lines where it is used
> doesn't overflow, (b) changed comments at various places. Let me know what
> you think of attached.

Thanks for updating the patch, it looks good to me.

Best Regards,
Zhijie Hou

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Taha Naveed 2026-08-23 08:41:50 Re: PGQ catalog representation and pg_dump support
Previous Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2026-08-23 06:37:17 RE: MERGE/SPLIT PARTITIONS issues/questions