Horton

Re: speed up a logical replica setup

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, "kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-03-12T10:13:02Z
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. pg_createsubscriber: Remove obsolete comment

  2. pg_createsubscriber: Fix an unpredictable recovery wait time.

  3. Fix unstable test in 040_pg_createsubscriber.

  4. Fix the testcase introduced in commit 81d20fbf7a.

  5. Further weaken new pg_createsubscriber test on Windows.

  6. Temporarily(?) weaken new pg_createsubscriber test on Windows.

  7. Make pg_createsubscriber warn if publisher has two-phase commit enabled.

  8. Make pg_createsubscriber more wary about quoting connection parameters.

  9. pg_createsubscriber: Remove failover replication slots on subscriber

  10. pg_createsubscriber: Remove replication slot check on primary

  11. pg_createsubscriber: Only --recovery-timeout controls the end of recovery process

  12. pg_createsubscriber: creates a new logical replica from a standby server

  13. Add some const decorations

  14. Add option force_initdb to PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster:init()

  15. Remove MSVC scripts

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:44 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> 4) Is FOR ALL TABLES a good idea?
>
> I'm not sure FOR ALL TABLES is a good idea. Or said differently, I'm
> sure it won't work for a number of use cases. I know large databases
> it's common to create "work tables" (not necessarily temporary) as part
> of a batch job, but there's no need to replicate those tables.
>
> AFAIK that'd break this FOR ALL TABLES publication, because the tables
> will qualify for replication, but won't be present on the subscriber. Or
> did I miss something?
>

As the subscriber is created from standby, all the tables should be
present at least initially during and after creating the subscriber.
Users are later free to modify the publications/subscriptions.

> I do understand that FOR ALL TABLES is the simplest approach, and for v1
> it may be an acceptable limitation, but maybe it'd be good to also
> support restricting which tables should be replicated (e.g. blacklist or
> whitelist based on table/schema name?).
>

This would be useful, but OTOH could also be enhanced in a later
version unless we think it is a must for the first version.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.