On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:37 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Amit, Sawada-san, > > > Fair enough. Also, with the current approach, we don't need to repeat > > the same LOG message ( > > conflict (multiple_unique_conflicts) detected on relation > > "public.conf_tab") again and again even though we do similar things at > > other places[1] (the STATEMENT is repeated). If we have to follow your > > advice then I can think of following formats: > ... > > Basically they look good to me, but I prefer to clarify the column name for > each > tuples at least once per one output. Like: > > ``` > DETAIL: Key (a)=(2) already ... local row (a, b, c) = (2, 2, 2), remote row > [(a, b, c) = ](2, 3, 4). > ``` > > Admin can easily follow what is the exact reason why it happened. > Also, the ordering of column can be different between instances, and it may > cause > misunderstanding. Currently they would be re-ordered by the subscriber-side > ones, > but reader may understand by the publisher-side ones. >
As shown upthread, in existing places where we display the entire row, we don't use columns, so doesn't see why we need to be different here. I think but we can display for RI columns. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
