On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 12:42 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 at 15:13, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the updated version of patch
>
> I would like to suggest renaming the newly introduced system schema
> from pg_conflict to pg_logical or something in lines of logical
> replication.
> Although the immediate use case is conflict logging, the schema is
> fundamentally part of the logical replication subsystem. A broader
> name such as pg_logical provides a more appropriate and future proof
> namespace. In contrast, a feature-specific name like pg_conflict is
> risky as logical replication evolves and could necessitate the
> introduction of additional system schemas later. Looking ahead,
> advanced features such as DDL replication or multi-node writes would
> likely require metadata for cluster topology of multiple nodes, leader
> state, peer discovery, and resolution policies for node failure. This
> type of replication specific metadata would naturally fit under a
> pg_logical system schema rather than pg_catalog.
>
> Finally, adopting pg_logical would leave open the possibility of
> logically grouping existing logical replication catalogs and views
> (publications, subscriptions, and slot related information) under a
> single subsystem namespace, instead of having them scattered across
> pg_catalog.
I agree with this analysis of making it future proof what others think
about this? Although we might not be clear now what permission
differences would be needed for future metadata tables compared to
conflict tables, those could be managed if we get the generic name.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
