On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@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? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
