Re: Warn on missing replica identity in CREATE/ALTER PUBLICATION - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | 南拓弥 |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Warn on missing replica identity in CREATE/ALTER PUBLICATION |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAP6NMUJEvkD1BKm8YCVch5YhcwqaVeLQXWGQhqF-+gdDufgs3w@mail.gmail.com Whole thread |
| In response to | Re: Warn on missing replica identity in CREATE/ALTER PUBLICATION (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Warn on missing replica identity in CREATE/ALTER PUBLICATION
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
# Reply draft v2 to Shveta --- Hi Shveta, Thanks for pointing out that thread. I've read through it carefully. I believe the two proposals address different aspects of the same problem: - The fallback RI approach changes runtime behavior so that tables without a primary key can still replicate UPDATE/DELETE. - This proposal simply warns at DDL time that a publication contains tables whose replica identity will cause UPDATE/DELETE to fail at replication time. A WARNING at publication creation time is useful regardless of whether a fallback mechanism exists, because: - If a table has REPLICA IDENTITY DEFAULT with no primary key, it silently falls back to NOTHING. Combining that with a publication that publishes updates/deletes is guaranteed to fail at runtime. A WARNING at DDL time closes this gap. - Even users who explicitly set REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING and add the table to an update/delete publication would benefit from a reminder, since that combination cannot succeed. - The WARNING does not change any existing behavior — it only makes the misconfiguration visible earlier. Notably, Euler mentioned in that thread [1] that he would "suggest a way to disallow or add a warning message while creating the publication or adding new tables", which is exactly what this proposal does. That said, I see the two proposals as complementary. Should I continue this as a separate thread, or would it be better to join the existing discussion? I have a working patch covering all publication paths (FOR TABLE, FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA, FOR ALL TABLES, ALTER PUBLICATION). Happy to post it either way. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a9da608f-24be-4213-a712-8592852d37f1%40app.fastmail.com Best regards, 2026年4月22日(水) 12:33 shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:06 AM 南拓弥 <minamitakuya@lifull.com> wrote: > > > > Hi hackers, > > > > CREATE PUBLICATION silently succeeds even when target tables lack a > > usable replica identity, while the publication publishes UPDATE and/or > > DELETE. The error only surfaces later at replication time: > > > > ERROR: cannot delete from table "foo" because it does not have a > > replica identity and publishes deletes > > > > This gap has caused real production incidents — in one case, a CDC > > pipeline using FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA included a table without a primary > > key, and replication stalled for hours before the cause was found. > > > > I'd like to propose emitting a WARNING at publication creation/alter > > time when this mismatch exists. The check would cover all paths: > > > > - CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR TABLE / FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA / FOR ALL TABLES > > - ALTER PUBLICATION ... ADD/SET TABLE / ADD/SET TABLES IN SCHEMA > > - ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET (publish = 'update, delete') > > > > The approach I'm considering is a publication-level check that runs > > after the final publication state is known, scanning the effective set > > of published tables via GetIncludedPublicationRelations() / > > GetAllSchemaPublicationRelations() / GetAllPublicationRelations() and > > checking each table's replica identity. > > > > I have a working prototype for the FOR TABLE / ADD TABLE paths. A few > > open questions before I post a full patch: > > > > 1. For FOR ALL TABLES, the check would scan pg_class. Acceptable for > > a DDL operation, or too expensive? > > > > 2. Should we cap the number of warnings when many tables are affected? > > > > 3. Should this be controllable via a GUC, or is a simple WARNING > > sufficient? > > > > Thoughts welcome. > > > > Before we dive deeper into this idea, I’d like to highlight that > there’s an ongoing thread addressing a similar issue. The proposed > approach there is to implement a fallback RI in such scenarios to > prevent replication-time errors caused by missing RI. Could you please > review this ([1]) and confirm whether it meets your requirements? > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEoWx2mMorbMwjKbT4YCsjDyL3r9Mp%2Bz0bbK57VZ%2BOkJTgJQVQ%40mail.gmail.com > > thanks > Shveta -- ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ あらゆるLIFEを、FULLに。 株式会社LIFULL テクノロジー本部 事業基盤U プラットフォームG 南 拓弥 minamitakuya@lifull.com 〒102-0083 東京都千代田区麹町1-4-4 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
pgsql-hackers by date: