On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 10:11 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2026-07-18 at 12:10 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:06 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
> > > Looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I will commit this soon.
>
> Committed with a smaller test. Thank you.
>
> > > 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?
> ...
> > 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.
>
> OK, should we go ahead and split the pg_subscription catalog for v20
> then? Maybe pg_subscription (shared) and pg_subscription_db (per-
> database)?
>
+1, though I am not sure of catalog names. We can brainstorm those
during development.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
