Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?
Date
Msg-id 0dc10006-a214-c8d0-d59f-e6fceb6a1c27@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?  (Mike Lissner <mlissner@michaeljaylissner.com>)
Responses Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?  (Mike Lissner <mlissner@michaeljaylissner.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 12/12/18 3:19 PM, Mike Lissner wrote:
> This sounds *very* plausible. So I think there are a few takeaways:
> 
> 1. Should the docs mention that additive changes with NOT NULL 
> constraints are bad?

It's not the NOT NULL it's the lack of a DEFAULT. In general a column 
with a NOT NULL and no DEFAULT is going to to bite you sooner or later:) 
At this point I have gathered enough of those bite marks to just make it 
my policy to always provide a DEFAULT for a NOT NULL column.

> 
> 2. Is there a way this could work without completely breaking 
> replication? For example, should Postgresql realize replication can't 
> work in this instance and then stop it until schemas are back in sync, 
> like it does with other incompatible schema changes? That'd be better 
> than failing in this way and is what I'd expect to happen.

Not sure as there is no requirement that a column has a specified 
DEFAULT. This is unlike PK and FK constraint violations where the 
relationship is spelled out. Trying to parse all the possible ways a 
user could get into trouble would require something on the order of an 
AI and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

> 
> 3. Are there other edge cases like this that aren't well documented that 
> we can expect to creep up on us? If so, should we try to spell out 
> exactly *which* additive changes *are* OK?

Not that I know of. By their nature edge cases are rare and often are 
dealt with in the moment and not pushed out to everybody. The only 
solution I know of is pretesting your schema change/replication setup on 
a dev installation.

> 
> This feels like a major "gotcha" to me, and I'm trying to avoid those. I 
> feel like the docs are pretty lacking here and that others will find 
> themselves in similarly bad positions.

Logical replication in core(not the pglogical extension) appeared for 
the first time in version 10. On the crawl/walk/run spectrum it is 
moving from crawl to walk. The docs will take some time to be more 
complete. Just for the record my previous post was sketching out a 
possible scenario not an ironclad answer. If you think the answer is 
plausible and a 'gotcha' I would file a bug:

https://www.postgresql.org/account/login/?next=/account/submitbug/

> 
> Better schema migration docs would surely help, too.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Ravi Krishna
Date:
Subject: Re: explain analyze cost
Next
From: Mike Lissner
Date:
Subject: Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?