Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From shveta malik
Subject Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date
Msg-id CAJpy0uB_Kj4XTHB41pMM8WtMRDwMAx3tXi=nDowrd9MSrH8UNw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I was checking patch006. I understand the purpose of patch 006, but I
don’t think it’s needed at the moment. Currently, we support only two
destinations: log and table, and we already provide 'all' to cover
both. This patch would make sense if we either supported at least
three destinations or didn’t have the 'all' option. As it stands, none
of the comma-separated combinations are meaningful:

log,all
table,all
log,table (already covered by all)

Should we defer this patch until we actually support additional
destinations? One option is to remove 'all', but for now, 'all' feels
more appropriate than introducing comma-separated values.

thanks
Shveta



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow GUC settings in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION CONNECTION to take effect
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Typos in the code and README