Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> This is the V54 patch set, with only patch 0001 updated to address the latest
> comments.
>

Few minor comments:
1.
/* The row to be updated was deleted by a different origin */
CT_UPDATE_DELETED,
/* The row to be updated was modified by a different origin */
CT_UPDATE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS,
/* The updated row value violates unique constraint */
CT_UPDATE_EXISTS,
/* The row to be updated is missing */
CT_UPDATE_MISSING,

Is there a reason to keep CT_UPDATE_DELETED before
CT_UPDATE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS? I mean why not keep it just before
CT_UPDATE_MISSING on the grounds that they are always handled
together?

2. Will it be better to name FindRecentlyDeletedTupleInfoByIndex as
RelationFindDeletedTupleInfoByIndex to make it similar to existing
function RelationFindReplTupleByIndex? If you agree then make a
similar change for FindRecentlyDeletedTupleInfoSeq as well.

Apart from above, please find a number of comment edits and other
cosmetic changes in the attached.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.