Horton

Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

View thread
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-11-26T10:45:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow logical replication conflicts to be logged to a table.

  2. Avoid orphaned objects dependencies

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 2:05 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 4:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 1:59 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > On a separate note, I've been considering how to manage conflict log
> > insertions when an error causes the outer transaction to abort, which
> > seems to be a non-trivial.
> >
> > Here is what I have in mind:
> > ======================
> > First, prepare_conflict_log() would be executed from
> > ReportApplyConflict(). This function would handle all preliminary
> > work, such as preparing the tuple for the conflict log table. Second,
> > insert_conflict_log() would be executed. If the error level in
> > ReportApplyConflict() is LOG, the insertion would occur directly.
> > Otherwise, the log information would be stored in a global variable
> > and inserted in a separate transaction once we exit start_apply() due
> > to the error.
> >
> > @shveta malik @Amit Kapila let me know what you think?  Or do you
> > think it can be simplified?
> >
>
> I could not think of a better way. This idea works for me. I had
> doubts if it will be okay to start a new transaction in catch-block
> (if we plan to do it in start_apply's), but then I found few other
> functions doing it (see do_autovacuum, perform_work_item,
> _SPI_commit). So IMO, we should be good.
>

On re-reading, I think you were not suggesting to handle it in the
CATCH block. Where exactly once we exit start_apply?
But since the situation will arise only in case of ERROR, I thought
handling in catch-block could be one option.

thanks
Shveta