On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:06 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 20:53 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > Thanks for the review
>
> Looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I will commit this soon.
>
Thanks.
> To address Noah's concern: is the concern about the dependency link, or
> about having a database-specific oid in a shared catalog at all?
>
> If the former, then we could do the same work manually outside of the
> pg_depend mechanism.
>
> If the latter, we could decompose pg_subscription into the columns
> necessary for the launcher (shared catalog) and the database-specific
> columns (unshared catalog). But that's more invasive so it might not be
> v19 material.
>
I feel it is the latter as the former doesn't scale well, since each
new db-specific column would need its own bespoke handling instead of
the dependency machinery handling it uniformly. I agree with your
judgement that it is not a good idea to tackle this in v19, especially
because splitting a shared, user-visible catalog is too
invasive to land safely this late in the cycle, whereas the
subdbid-scoping fix already resolves the actual bug at low risk,
leaving the decomposition as a structural cleanup better suited to
v20.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
