Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 3:27 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 5:15 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 2:43 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I agree that option-2 is useful and IIUC, we are already working on
> > > something similar in thread [1]. However, it is better to use option-1
> > > here because we are using non-user specified mechanism to skip changes
> > > during replication, so following the same during other times is
> > > preferable. Once we have that other feature [1], we can probably
> > > optimize this code to use it without taking input from the user. The
> > > other reason of not going with the option-2 in the way you are
> > > proposing is that it doesn't seem like a good idea to have multiple
> > > ways to specify skipping tables from publishing. I find the approach
> > > being discussed in thread [1] a generic and better than a new
> > > table-level option.
> > >
> > > [1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANhcyEVt2CBnG7MOktaPPV4rYapHR-VHe5%3DqoziTZh1L9SVc6w%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> > I understand the current discussion revolves around using an EXCEPT
> > clause (for tables/schemas/columns) during publication creation.  But
> > what we want is to mark some table which will be excluded permanently
> > from publication, because we can not expect users to explicitly
> > exclude them while creating publication.
> >
> > So, I propose we add a "non-publishable" property to tables
> > themselves. This is a more valuable option for users who are certain
> > that certain tables should never be replicated.
> >
> > By marking a table as non-publishable, we save users the effort of
> > repeatedly listing it in the EXCEPT option for every new publication.
> > Both methods have merit, but the proposed table property addresses the
> > need for a permanent, system-wide exclusion.
> >
> > See below test with a quick hack, what I am referring to.
> >
> > postgres[2730657]=# CREATE TABLE test(a int) WITH
> > (NON_PUBLISHABLE_TABLE = true);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres[2730657]=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES ;
> > CREATE PUBLICATION
> > postgres[2730657]=# select pg_get_publication_tables('pub');
> >  pg_get_publication_tables
> > ---------------------------
> > (0 rows)
> >
> >
> > But I agree this is an additional table option which might need
> > consensus, so meanwhile we can proceed with option2, I will prepare
> > patches with option-2 and as a add on patch I will propose option-1.
> > And this option-1 patch can be discussed in a separate thread as well.
>
> So here is the patch set using option-2, with this when alltable
> option is used and we get pg_get_publication_tables(), this will check
> the relid against the conflict history tables in the subscribers and
> those tables will not be added to the list.  I will start a separate
> thread for proposing the patch I sent in previous email.
>

I have started going through this thread. Is it possible to rebase the
patches and post?

thanks
Shveta