On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 10:11 PM Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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)? >
+1, though I am not sure of catalog names. We can brainstorm those during development. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
