On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-Apr-30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 2:02 AM Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > > That seems to deal with a circular replication, i.e. two logical
> > > replication links - a bit like a multi-master. Not sure how is that
> > > related to the issue we're discussing here?
> >
> > It is not directly related to what we are discussing here but I was
> > trying to emphasize the point that users need to define the logical
> > replication via pub/sub sanely otherwise they might see some weird
> > behaviors like that.
>
> I agree with that.
>
> My proposal is that if users want to define multiple publications, and
> their definitions conflict in a way that would behave ridiculously (==
> bound to cause data inconsistencies eventually), an error should be
> thrown. Maybe we will not be able to catch all bogus cases, but we can
> be prepared for the most obvious ones, and patch later when we find
> others.
>
I agree with throwing errors for obvious/known bogus cases but do we
want to throw errors or restrict the combining of column lists when
row filters are present in all cases? See some examples [1 ] where it
may be valid to combine them.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1K%2BPkkC6_FDemGMC_i%2BAakx%2B3%3DQG-g4We3BdCK7dK_bgA%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
