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.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?
WFM -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
