Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
| От | Dilip Kumar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFiTN-tM1zOk50xoeP5vdzaO0U_iQ3u8oZ2P1L7J=0ka+c7Utw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Support logical replication of DDLs (Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:43 PM Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > One of the most frequently requested improvements from our customers > is to reduce downtime associated with software updates (both major and > minor versions). To do this, we have reviewed potential contributions to > improving logical replication. > > I’m working on a patch to support logical replication of data > definition language statements (DDLs). This is a useful feature when a > database in logical replication has lots of tables, functions and > other objects that change over time, such as in online cross major > version upgrade. +1 > I put together a prototype that replicates DDLs using the generic > messages for logical decoding. The idea is to log the candidate DDL > string in ProcessUtilitySlow() using LogLogicalMessge() with a new > flag in WAL record type xl_logical_message indicating it’s a DDL > message. The xl_logical_message record is decoded and sent to the > subscriber via pgoutput. The logical replication worker process is > dispatched for this new DDL message type and executes the command > accordingly. If you don't mind, would you like to share the POC or the branch for this work? > However, there are still many edge cases to sort out because not every > DDL statement can/should be replicated. Some of these include: > 3. CREATE TABLE AS and SELECT INTO, For example: > > CREATE TABLE foo AS > SELECT field_1, field_2 FROM bar; > > There are a few issues that can occur here. For one, it’s possible > that table bar doesn't exist on the subscriber. Even if “bar” does > exist, it may not be fully up-to-date with the publisher, which would > cause a data mismatch on “foo” between the publisher and subscriber. In such cases why don't we just log the table creation WAL for DDL instead of a complete statement which creates the table and inserts the tuple? Because we are already WAL logging individual inserts and once you make sure of replicating the table creation I think the exact data insertion on the subscriber side will be taken care of by the insert WALs no? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: