Hi,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:10:00PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 5:55 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My initial thought was to put "conflict" value in this new field in case of
> > conflict (not to mention the conflict reason in it). With the current proposal
> > invalidation_reason could report the same as conflict_reason, which sounds weird
> > to me.
> >
> > Does that make sense to you to use "conflict" as value in "invalidation_reason"
> > when the slot has "conflict_reason" not NULL?
>
> I'm thinking the other way around - how about we revert
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=007693f2a3ac2ac19affcb03ad43cdb36ccff5b5,
> that is, put in place "conflict" as a boolean and introduce
> invalidation_reason the text form. So, for logical slots, whenever the
> "conflict" column is true, the reason is found in invaldiation_reason
> column? How does it sound?
Yeah, I think that looks fine too. We would need more change (like take care of
ddd5f4f54a for example).
CC'ing Amit, Hou-San and Shveta to get their point of view (as the ones behind
007693f2a3 and ddd5f4f54a).
Regarding,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
