On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 5:06 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 4:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, seeing this report, it seems the customer(s) are probably okay to
> > > skip a missing publication and let replication continue. So, we should
> > > consider backpatching this change but it would be better if few more
> > > people can share their opinion on this matter.
> >
> > Including Tomas for his opinion. Who else do you think can provide an
> > opinion based on experience?
> >
>
> I don't have any particular names in mind but Dilip and Sawada-San
> names are listed as reviewers in the commit [1], so it would be good
> to see what are their thoughts on this.
>
> Please note that this behavior is from the time logical replication
> was introduced, so we need to be a bit careful in changing the
> behavior in backbranches.
>
> [1] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7c99dc587a010a0c40d72a0e435111ca7a371c02
I believe we should backpatch this fix. The old behavior doesn't seem
intentional, and IMHO users might not be relying on that behavior, but
that's just my thought and someone can come across a real world use
case where a user might be depending on that behavior? Although we
initially didn't backpatch it because it changed existing behavior and
hadn't received any complaints, a recent complaint suggests that it's
now better to improve the back branches as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
