Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences

On 2/12/22 01:34, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've polished & pushed the first part adding sequence decoding
>> infrastructure etc. Attached are the two remaining parts.
>>
>> I plan to wait a day or two and then push the test_decoding part. The
>> last part (for built-in replication) will need more work and maybe
>> rethinking the grammar etc.
>>
> 
> I've pushed the second part, adding sequences to test_decoding.
> 
> Here's the remaining part, rebased, with a small tweak in the TAP test
> to eliminate the issue with not waiting for sequence increments. I've
> kept the tweak in a separate patch, so that we can throw it away easily
> if we happen to resolve the issue.
> 

Hmm, cfbot was not happy about this, so here's a version fixing the
elog() format issue reported by CirrusCI/mingw by ditching the log
message. It was useful for debugging, but otherwise just noise.

I'm a bit puzzled about the macOS failure, though. It seems as if the
test does not wait for the subscriber long enough, but this is with the
tweaked test variant, so it should not have the rollback issue. And I
haven't seen this failure on any other machine.

Regarding adding decoding of sequences to the built-in replication,
there is a couple questions that we need to discuss first before
cleaning up the code etc. Most of them are related to syntax and
handling of various sequence variants.


1) Firstly, what about implicit sequences. That is, if you create a
table with SERIAL or BIGSERIAL column, that'll have a sequence attached.
Should those sequences be added to the publication when the table gets
added? Or should we require adding them separately? Or should that be
specified in the grammar, somehow? Should we have INCLUDING SEQUENCES
for ALTER PUBLICATION ... ADD TABLE ...?

I think we shouldn't require replicating the sequence, because who knows
what the schema is on the subscriber? We want to allow differences, so
maybe the sequence is not there. I'd start with just adding them
separately, because that just seems simpler, but maybe there are good
reasons to support adding them in ADD TABLE.


2) Should it be possible to add sequences that are also associated with
a serial column, without the table being replicated too? I'd say yes, if
people want to do that - I don't think it can cause any issues, and it's
possible to just use sequence directly for non-serial columns anyway.
Which is the same thing, but we can't detect that.


3) What about sequences for UNLOGGED tables? At the moment we don't
allow sequences to be UNLOGGED (Peter revived his patch [1], but that's
not committed yet). Again, I'd say it's up to the user to decide which
sequences are replicated - it's similar to (2).


4) I wonder if we actually want FOR ALL SEQUENCES. On the one hand it'd
be symmetrical with FOR ALL TABLES, which is the other object type we
can replicate. So it'd seem reasonable to handle them in a similar way.
But it's causing some shift/reduce error in the grammar, so it'll need
some changes.



regards


[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8da92c1f-9117-41bc-731b-ce1477a77d69@enterprisedb.com

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company