Re: "unexpected duplicate for tablespace" problem in logical replication

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:38 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe. It might be better for the cache not to register temprary
> relations at all.

This point seems worthy of serious consideration to me. Is there any
reason why we need RelidByRelfilenumber() to work with temporary
relations at all? I understand that the current behavior is exposed
via the SQL-callable function, but maybe that's not really
intentional. If there's no other use of RelidByRelfilenumber() that
needs to care about permanent relations intrinsically, I think we
shouldn't hesitate to just cut them out of the mechanism entirely.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com