On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 1:29 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 2026, at 15:32, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear Chao, Amit, > > > >> In theory, yes, since subscription names are also unique per database. I > >> didn’t > >> include that in v1 because the publication-name issue affects the new PG19 > >> feature for reusing existing publications, whereas allowing duplicate > >> subscription > >> names seems like an improvement that could be a material of v20. > >> > >> As you ask, I put the subscription-name change in 0002. Please decide how > >> to > >> proceed. If you decide to accept both, they can be squashed. > > > > For subscription side, I had a concern that name duplication error can be > > more likely > > to happen if we specify the same subscription name for two databases. > > Because the > > same will be reused for the slot name. Reproducer: > > > > ``` > > $ pg_createsubscriber -D data_sta/ -P 'user=postgres port=5432' -d postgres > > --subscription sub -d testdb --subscription sub -U postgres > > ... > > pg_createsubscriber: error: could not create replication slot "sub" in > > database "testdb": ERROR: replication slot "sub" already exists > > ``` > >
Can't we use --replication-slot=name to avoid this ERROR? I mean use different replication slot names. > > Personally -1 to accept the idea as-is. > > > > Best regards, > > Hayato Kuroda > > FUJITSU LIMITED > > > > Good point. Allowing duplicate subscription names would require additional > work, so let's leave that for v20. I'm going to withdraw 0002. I also updated > 0001's commit message to explain why subscription names are excluded. > I was not suggesting to get the subscription work for PG19. Otherwise, your patch for publication names looks good to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
