Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
To: Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>,
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
shveta malik <shvetamalik@gmail.com>
Date: 2026-05-19T14:00:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v36-0003-transfer-ownership.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0004-Review-comment-fixes-for-transfer-ownership-patc.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0005-Implement-the-conflict-insertion-infrastructure-.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0001-Add-configurable-conflict-log-table-for-Logical-.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0002-Review-comment-fixes-for-Add-configurable-confli.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0006-Review-comment-fixes-for-Implement-the-conflict-.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0007-Preserve-conflict-log-destination-and-subscripti.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0009-Review-comment-fixes-for-Documentation-patch.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0008-Documentation-patch.patch (application/octet-stream)
- v36-0010-Add-conflict-log-table-information-to-describe-s.patch (application/octet-stream)
On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 15:59, Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the patches. Please find below comments for v34 patch-set. > > patch-003: > 4) conflict.c: ReportApplyConflict() > + bool log_dest_clt = false; > + bool log_dest_logfile; > > log_dest_logfile should also be initialized to false, since for dest > == CONFLICT_LOG_DEST_TABLE, it is never assigned. It is not required to be initialized now as it is being assigned before used in this function now. > 5) worker_internal.h > extern PGDLLIMPORT List *table_states_not_ready; > > +extern XLogRecPtr remote_final_lsn; > +extern TimestampTz remote_commit_ts; > +extern TransactionId remote_xid; > > Should these new declarations also use PGDLLIMPORT? I think these don't require PGDLLIMPORT as it will be used by the same apply worker backend process. Rest of the comments are handled, the attached v36 version patches have the changes for the same. Also the comment from [1] has been fixed in this version. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABdArM5XgHE4-HCryi54BxENgNqLDn81cMCUyqBdCeF9d3dbvA%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh