Re: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 12:41, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 11:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 5:29 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Below are my review comments for the PoC patch 0001.
> > >
> > > In addition,  the patch needed rebasing, and, after I rebased it
> > > locally in my private environment there were still test failures:
> > > a) The 'make check' tests fail but only in a minor way due to changes colname
> > > b) the subscription TAP test did not work at all for me -- many errors.
> >
> > Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> >
> > While updating the patch, I realized that the current approach won't
> > work well or at least has the problem with partition tables. If a
> > publication has a partitioned table with publish_via_root = false, the
> > subscriber launches tablesync workers for its partitions so that each
> > tablesync worker copies data of each partition. Similarly, if it has a
> > partition table with publish_via_root = true, the subscriber launches
> > a tablesync worker for the parent table. With the current design,
> > since the tablesync worker is responsible for both schema and data
> > synchronization for the target table, it won't be possible to
> > synchronize both the parent table's schema and partitions' schema. For
> > example, there is no pg_subscription_rel entry for the parent table if
> > the publication has publish_via_root = false. In addition to that, we
> > need to be careful about the order of synchronization of the parent
> > table and its partitions. We cannot start schema synchronization for
> > partitions before its parent table. So it seems to me that we need to
> > consider another approach.
>
> So I've implemented a different approach; doing schema synchronization
> at a CREATE SUBSCRIPTION time. The backend executing CREATE
> SUBSCRIPTION uses pg_dump and restores the table schemas including
> both partitioned tables and their partitions regardless of
> publish_via_partition_root option, and then creates
> pg_subscription_rel entries for tables while respecting
> publish_via_partition_root option.
>
> There is a window between table creations and the tablesync workers
> starting to process the tables. If DDLs are executed in this window,
> the tablesync worker might fail because the table schema might have
> already been changed. We need to mention this note in the
> documentation. BTW, I think we will be able to get rid of this
> downside if we support DDL replication. DDLs executed in the window
> are applied by the apply worker and it takes over the data copy to the
> tablesync worker at a certain LSN.
>
> I've attached PoC patches. It has regression tests but doesn't have
> the documentation yet.

Few thoughts:
1) There might be a scenario where we will create multiple
subscriptions with the tables overlapping across the subscription, in
that case, the table will be present when the 2nd subscription is
being created, can we do something in this case:
+               /*
+                * Error if the table is already present on the
subscriber. Please note
+                * that concurrent DDLs can create the table as we
don't acquire any lock
+                * on the table.
+                *
+                * XXX: do we want to overwrite it (or optionally)?
+                */
+               if (OidIsValid(RangeVarGetRelid(rv, AccessShareLock, true)))
+                       ereport(ERROR,
+                                       (errmsg("existing table %s
cannot synchronize table schema",
+                                                       rv->relname)));

2) Should we clean the replication slot in case of failures, currently
the replication slot is left over.

3) Is it expected that all of the dependencies like type/domain etc
should be created by the user before creating a subscription with
copy_schema, currently we are taking care of creating the sequences
for tables, is this an exception?

4) If a column list publication is created, currently we are getting
all of the columns, should we get only the specified columns in this
case?

Regards,
Vignesh