Horton

Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format

Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-03-02T15:27:23Z
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. Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format.

  2. Common function for percent placeholder replacement

  3. Doc: add XML ID attributes to <sectN> and <varlistentry> tags.

  4. Re-order disable_on_error in tab-complete.

  5. Make subscription tests pass with log_error_verbosity=verbose

  6. Weaken type-OID-matching checks in array_recv and record_recv.

  7. Allow logical replication to transfer data in binary format.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:30 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > TBH I am not sure anymore if the complications justify the patch.
> >
> > It seems we have to choose from 2 bad choices:
> > - separate options = this works but would be more confusing for the user
> > - unified option = this would be simpler and faster, but risks
> > breaking existing applications currently using 'binary=true'
> >
>
> I would prefer a unified option as apart from other things you and
> others mentioned that will be less of a maintenance burden in the
> future.
>
+1
When someone sets the binary=true while creating a subscription, the
expectation would be that the data transfer will happen in binary mode
if binary in/out functions are available. As per current
implementation, that's not happening in the table-sync phase. So, it
makes sense to fix that behaviour in a major version release.
For the existing applications that are using (or unknowingly misusing)
the feature, as Amit mentioned, they have a workaround.


-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh