Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Jmsx-xT4ge5fq4hKJgbgbGHYLkNgwgAaZwxJVTomO0vA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 7) > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration' to > > 'max_conflict_info_retention_duration' as the latter one is more > > clear? > > > > Before bikeshedding on the name of this option, I would like us to > once again consider whether we should provide this option at > subscription-level or GUC? > Now that we decided that we would like to go with the subscription option. The other alternative to name this new option could be max_retention_duration. The explanation should clarify that it is used with the retain_dead_tuples option. I think the other proposed names appear a bit long to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: