On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:06 AM Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 20:53 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > Thanks for the review > > Looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I will commit this soon. >
Thanks. > To address Noah's concern: is the concern about the dependency link, or > about having a database-specific oid in a shared catalog at all? > > If the former, then we could do the same work manually outside of the > pg_depend mechanism. > > If the latter, we could decompose pg_subscription into the columns > necessary for the launcher (shared catalog) and the database-specific > columns (unshared catalog). But that's more invasive so it might not be > v19 material. > I feel it is the latter as the former doesn't scale well, since each new db-specific column would need its own bespoke handling instead of the dependency machinery handling it uniformly. I agree with your judgement that it is not a good idea to tackle this in v19, especially because splitting a shared, user-visible catalog is too invasive to land safely this late in the cycle, whereas the subdbid-scoping fix already resolves the actual bug at low risk, leaving the decomposition as a structural cleanup better suited to v20. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
