On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:35 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 8:09 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 9:51 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 5:11 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > We could do this as a first step. See the proposal in email [1] where > > > we have discussed having two options instead of one. The first option > > > will be conflict_log_format and the values would be log and table. In > > > this case, the table would be an internally generated one. > > > > > > [1] - > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KwqE2y%3D_k5Xc%3Def0S5JXG2x%3DoeWpDJ%2B%3D5k6Anzaw2gdw%40mail.gmail.com > > > > So I have put more thought on this and here is what I am proposing > > > > 1) Subscription Parameter: Son in first version the subscription > > parameter will be named 'conflict_log_format' which will accept > > 'log/table/both' default option would be log. > > 2) If conflict_log_format = log is provided then we do not need to do > > anything as this would work by default > > 3) If conflict_log_format = table/both is provided then we will > > generate a internal table name i.e. conflict_log_table_$subid$ and the > > table will be created in the current schema > > 4) in pg_subscription we will still keep 2 field a) namespace id of > > the conflict log table b) the conflict log format = 'log/table'both' > > 5) If option is table/both the name can be generated on the fly > > whether we are creating the table or inserting conflict into the > > table. > > IIUC, previously you had a "none" value which was a way to "turn off" > any CLT previously defined. How can users do that now with > log/table/both? Would they have to reassign (the default) "log"? That > seems a bit strange.
Previously we were supporting only conflict log tables and by default it was always sent to log. And "none" was used for clearing the conflict log table option; it was never meant for not logging anywhere it was meant to say that there is no conflict log table. Now also we can have another option as none but I intentionally avoided it considering we want to support the case where we don't want to log it at all, maybe that's not a bad idea either. Let's see what others think about it. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
