On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 9:42 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some review comments for v22-0003.
>
> ======
>
> 1.
> It looks like none of my previous v20-0003 review comments [1] have
> been addressed. Maybe accidentally overlooked?
>
> ======
>
> 2.
> + <caution>
> + <para>
> + The internal conflict logging table is strictly tied to
> the lifecycle of the
> + subscription or the
> <literal>conflict_log_destination</literal> setting. If
> + the subscription is dropped, or if the destination is changed to
> + <literal>log</literal>, the table and all its recorded
> conflict data are
> + <emphasis>permanently deleted</emphasis>. To perform a
> post-mortem analysis
> + after removing a subscription, users must manually back up
> or rename the
> + conflict table before the deletion occurs.
> + </para>
> + </caution>
>
> 2a.
> Let's consistently call this the "Conflict log table", same as
> everywhere else, not "logging table".
>
> ~
>
> 2b.
> This is only a caution for the CLT, so I felt it's better to put this
> in the scope of the 'table' param value.
>
> ~~~
>
> 3.
> + analysis of conflicts. This table is automatically
> dropped when the
> + subscription is removed.
>
> If you move the <caution> to this scope, as suggested above in #2b,
> then you can remove the sentence "This table is automatically dropped
> when the subscription is removed", because that is duplicate
> information you already wrote in the caution.
The attached patch fixes above comments and other comments reported in
v22-0001 and v22-0002
> ======
> [1] v20 docs review -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPuzB4gNYvqX9hb28KE0RK_xhU%2B2-%3DwUfL5OEVUCi92Hqw%40mail.gmail.com
I think I missed them, so I will respond to them separately.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
