Horton

Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Cc: Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, rajesh.rs0541@gmail.com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-04-11T05:00:43Z
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. Add a run_as_owner option to subscriptions.

  2. Refactor pgoutput_change().

  3. Print the correct aliases for DML target tables in ruleutils.

  4. Fix object identity string for transforms

  5. Add grantable MAINTAIN privilege and pg_maintain role.

  6. Get rid of recursion-marker values in enum AlterTableType

  7. Release cache tuple when no longer needed

  8. Empty search_path in logical replication apply worker and walsender.

  9. Refactor format_type APIs to be more modular

  10. Use wrappers of PG_DETOAST_DATUM_PACKED() more.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:39 AM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. For DDL replication, do we need to wait for a consistent point of
> snapshot? For DMLs, that point is a convenient point to initialize
> replication from, which is why we export a snapshot at that point,
> which is used to read normal data. Do we have any similar needs for
> DDL replication?
>

I have thought a bit more about this and I think we need to build the
snapshot for DML replication as we need to read catalog tables to
decode the corresponding WAL but it is not clear to me if we have a
similar requirement for DDL replication. If the catalog access is
required then it makes sense to follow the current snapshot model,
otherwise, we may need to think differently for DDL replication.

One more related point is that for DML replication, we do ensure that
we copy the entire data of the table (via initial sync) which exists
even before the publication for that table exists, so do we want to do
something similar for DDLs? How do we sync the schema of the table
before the user has defined the publication? Say the table has been
created before the publication is defined and after that, there are
only Alter statements, so do we expect, users to create the table on
the subscriber and then we can replicate the Alter statements? And
even if we do that it won't be clear which Alter statements will be
replicated after publication is defined especially if those Alters
happened concurrently with defining publications?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.