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 CAJpy0uCc_s6WMKxgA9sFkBNe2j0yQWrxguOhLOrxP27x0BKDBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 7:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 9:33 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 6:54 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMHO we should just log WARNING and continue the apply worker on
> > > conflict insertion failure, lets see what other thinks on this.
> > >
> >
> > I have the same opinion. Allowing CLT to block the apply worker would
> > be undesirable; CLT is a history/logs collection feature and should
> > not interrupt core logical replication work.
> >
>
> I think the insert can fail in rare cases like disk getting full while
> writing WAL or some internal memory ERROR and the ERROR could be
> persistent which means the LOG will be filled with the same WARNING if
> there are many conflicts. Also, users may not like missing out on
> conflict information. So, we can ERROR out and let users fix the
> situation.

Okay, that's another way to look at it. I am okay with this approach too.

Thanks,
Shveta



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Next
From: Andres Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove redundant DISTINCT when GROUP BY already guarantees uniqueness