Horton

Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-01-24T20:10:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. WAL log unchanged toasted replica identity key attributes.

  2. Add new wal_level, logical, sufficient for logical decoding.

  3. Add the notion of REPLICA IDENTITY for a table.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me this problem exists from the time we introduced
> wal_level = logical in the commit e55704d8b2 [1], or another
> possibility is that logical replication commit didn't consider
> something to make it work. Andres, Robert, Petr, can you guys please
> comment because otherwise, we might miss something here.

I'm belatedly getting around to looking at this thread. My
recollection of this is:

I think we realized when we were working on the logical decoding stuff
that the key columns of the old tuple would have to be detoasted in
order for the mechanism to work, because I remember worrying about
whether it would potentially be a problem that the WAL record would
end up huge. However, I think we believed that the new tuple wouldn't
need to have the detoasted values, because logical decoding is
designed to notice all the TOAST insertions for the new tuple and
reassemble those separate chunks to get the original value back. And
off-hand I'm not sure why that logic doesn't apply just as much to the
key columns as any others.

But the evidence does suggest that there's some kind of bug here, so
evidently there's some flaw in that line of thinking. I'm not sure
off-hand what it is, though.

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