On Thursday, July 24, 2025 11:42 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 12:53 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2025 12:08 PM Amit Kapila > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 3:51 AM Masahiko Sawada > > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've reviewed the 0001 patch and it looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I have pushed the 0001 patch. > > > > Thanks for pushing. I have rebased the remaining patches.
Thanks for the comments! > > > > I have reordered the patches to prioritize the detection of > > update_deleted as the initial patch. This can give us more time to > > consider the new GUC, since the performance-related aspects have been > documented. > > > > 2) > + if (MySubscription->retaindeadtuples && > + FindMostRecentlyDeletedTupleInfo(localrel, > + remoteslot, > + > &conflicttuple.xmin, > + > &conflicttuple.origin, > + > &conflicttuple.ts) && > + conflicttuple.origin != replorigin_session_origin) > + type = CT_UPDATE_DELETED; > + else > + type = CT_UPDATE_MISSING; > > Shall the conflict be detected as update_deleted irrespective of origin? According to the discussion[1], I kept the current behavior. > > > 5) > monitoring.sgml: > + <para> > + Number of times the tuple to be updated was deleted by another origin > + during the application of changes. See <xref > linkend="conflict-update-deleted"/> > + for details about this conflict. > + </para></entry> > > Here we are using the term 'by another origin', while in the rest of the doc > (see > confl_update_origin_differs, confl_delete_origin_differs) we use the term 'by > another source'. Shall we keep it the same? > OTOH, I think using 'origin' is better but the rest of the page is using > source. > So perhaps changing source to origin everywhere is better. Thoughts? > This can be changed if needed once we decide on point 2 above. Yes, origin may be better. But for now, I have changed to 'source' here to be consistent with the descriptions around it, and we can improve it in a separate patch if needed. Other comments have been addressed in the V53 patch set. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1L09u_A0HFRydA4xc%3DHpPkCh%2B7h-%2B_WRhKw1Cksp5_5zQ%40mail.gmail.com Best Regards, Hou zj
