Hi, On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:10:00PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 5:55 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My initial thought was to put "conflict" value in this new field in case of > > conflict (not to mention the conflict reason in it). With the current > > proposal > > invalidation_reason could report the same as conflict_reason, which sounds > > weird > > to me. > > > > Does that make sense to you to use "conflict" as value in > > "invalidation_reason" > > when the slot has "conflict_reason" not NULL? > > I'm thinking the other way around - how about we revert > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=007693f2a3ac2ac19affcb03ad43cdb36ccff5b5, > that is, put in place "conflict" as a boolean and introduce > invalidation_reason the text form. So, for logical slots, whenever the > "conflict" column is true, the reason is found in invaldiation_reason > column? How does it sound?
Yeah, I think that looks fine too. We would need more change (like take care of ddd5f4f54a for example). CC'ing Amit, Hou-San and Shveta to get their point of view (as the ones behind 007693f2a3 and ddd5f4f54a). Regarding, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
