On 19/01/18 12:37, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Il 18/01/18 17:48, Simon Riggs ha scritto:
>> On 17 January 2018 at 17:07, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Things I am less convinced about:
>>>
>>> The patch will cascade truncation on downstream if cascade was specified
>>> on the upstream, that can potentially be dangerous and we either should
>>> not do it and only truncate the tables which were truncated upstream
>>> (but without restricting because of FKs), leaving the data inconsistent
>>> on downstream (like we do already with DELETE or UPDATE). Or maybe make
>>> it into either subscription or publication option so that user can chose
>>> the behaviour here as I am sure some people will want it to cascade (but
>>> the default should still IMHO be to not cascade as that's safer).
>>
>> I agree the default should be to NOT cascade.
>>
>> If someone wants cascading as a publication option, that can be added later.
>>
>
> I agree that not replicating the CASCADE option is the best option
> according to POLA principle.
>
>>>> + /* logicalrep_rel_close call not needed, because ExecuteTruncateGuts
>>>> + * already closes the relations. Setting localrel to NULL in the map entry
>>>> + * is still needed.
>>>> + */
>>>> + rel->localrel = NULL;
>>>
>>> This is somewhat ugly. Perhaps the ExecuteTruncateGuts should track
>>> which relations it opened and only close those and the rest should be
>>> closed by caller? That should also remove the other ugly part which is
>>> that the ExecuteTruncateGuts modifies the input list. What if caller
>>> wanted to use those relations it sent as parameter later?
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>
> Attached a new version of the patch addressing these issues.
>
Besides the small thing I wrote for the 0001 in the other thread I am
pretty much happy with this now.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
