On Sat, 2026-07-18 at 12:10 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:06 AM Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
> > Looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I will commit this soon.
Committed with a smaller test. Thank you.
> > 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?
...
> 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.
OK, should we go ahead and split the pg_subscription catalog for v20
then? Maybe pg_subscription (shared) and pg_subscription_db (per-
database)?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
