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 CAA4eK1KfT-+FtUqd6iqYvghxBUcW4_1iP29bBGC-3QRdyeP7kQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:30 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 4:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 2.
> > @@ -2482,6 +2681,8 @@ DropSubscription(DropSubscriptionStmt *stmt,
> > bool isTopLevel)
> >   deleteDependencyRecordsFor(SubscriptionRelationId, subid, false);
> >   deleteSharedDependencyRecordsFor(SubscriptionRelationId, subid, 0);
> >
> > + drop_sub_conflict_log_table(subid, subname, subconflictlogrelid);
> >
> > It would be better to drop the table before cleaning up the dependency
> > record. Right now, it is okay even in current order because dependency
> > removal is trying to remove where subid is depender.
>
> So whats your suggestion change it now or not?  I feel either way is fine.
>

Let's change now itself.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Next
From: Emanuele
Date:
Subject: Re: Out-of-Cycle release? (was Re: BUG #19490: Streaming standby on 16.14 stops applying WAL on MultiXactOffsetSLRU when primary is 16.8)