Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JOVXhSbY1=isXfCXnEvG7pzZDFftts+Xy7hTXXf-d5ag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 3:46 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 4:47 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 3)
> > Do we need to have a timestamp column as well to say when conflict was
> > recorded? Or local_commit_ts, remote_commit_ts are sufficient?
> > Thoughts
>
> You mean we can record the timestamp now while inserting, not sure if
> it will add some more meaningful information than remote_commit_ts,
> but let's see what others think.
>

local_commit_ts and remote_commit_ts sounds sufficient as one can
identify the truth of information from those two. The key/schema
values displayed in this table could change later but the information
about a particular row is based on the time shown by those two
columns.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems