Hi,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:24:00PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, how about we turn conflict_reason to only report the reasons that
> > > > actually cause conflict with recovery for logical slots, something
> > > > like below, and then have invalidation_cause as a generic column for
> > > > all sorts of invalidation reasons for both logical and physical slots?
> > >
> > > If our above understanding is correct then coflict_reason will be a
> > > subset of invalidation_reason. If so, whatever way we arrange this
> > > information, there will be some sort of duplicity unless we just have
> > > one column 'invalidation_reason' and update the docs to interpret it
> > > correctly for conflicts.
> >
> > Yes, there will be some sort of duplicity if we emit conflict_reason
> > as a text field. However, I still think the better way is to turn
> > conflict_reason text to conflict boolean and set it to true only on
> > rows_removed and wal_level_insufficient invalidations. When conflict
> > boolean is true, one (including all the tests that we've added
> > recently) can look for invalidation_reason text field for the reason.
> > This sounds reasonable to me as opposed to we just mentioning in the
> > docs that "if invalidation_reason is rows_removed or
> > wal_level_insufficient it's the reason for conflict with recovery".
> >
>
> Fair point. I think we can go either way. Bertrand, Nathan, and
> others, do you have an opinion on this matter?
Sounds like a good approach to me and one will be able to quickly identify
if a conflict occured.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
