Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>

From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>

To: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

Cc: Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@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 <shvetamalik@gmail.com>

Date: 2026-05-27T08:34:37Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

v41-0004-Review-comment-fixes-for-transfer-ownership-patc.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0003-transfer-ownership.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0005-Implement-the-conflict-insertion-infrastructure-.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0001-Add-configurable-conflict-log-table-for-Logical-.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0002-Review-comment-fixes-for-Add-configurable-confli.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0006-Review-comment-fixes-for-Implement-the-conflict-.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0007-Preserve-conflict-log-destination-and-subscripti.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0010-Add-conflict-log-table-information-to-describe-s.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0009-Review-comment-fixes-for-Documentation-patch.patch (application/octet-stream)
v41-0008-Documentation-patch.patch (application/octet-stream)

On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 15:08, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:13 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.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