Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From japin
Subject Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION
Date
Msg-id MEYP282MB1669F9E65FF4D288BB36F26FB6AA0@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION  (Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 14:38, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:39 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:05 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:51 PM Bharath Rupireddy
>> > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > While providing thoughts on the design in [1], I found a strange
>> > > behaviour with the $subject. The use case is shown below as a sequence
>> > > of steps that need to be run on publisher and subscriber to arrive at
>> > > the strange behaviour.  In step 5, the table is dropped from the
>> > > publication and in step 6, the refresh publication is run on the
>> > > subscriber, from here onwards, the expectation is that no further
>> > > inserts into the publisher table have to be replicated on to the
>> > > subscriber, but the opposite happens i.e. the inserts are still
>> > > replicated to the subscriber. ISTM as a bug. Let me know if I'm
>> > > missing anything.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Did you try to investigate what's going on? Can you please check what
>> > is the behavior if, after step-5, you restart the subscriber and
>> > separately try creating a new subscription (maybe on a different
>> > server) for that publication after step-5 and see if that allows the
>> > relation to be replicated? AFAIU, in AlterSubscription_refresh, we
>> > remove such dropped rels and stop their corresponding apply workers
>> > which should stop the further replication of such relations but that
>> > doesn't seem to be happening in your case.
>>
>> Here's my analysis:
>> 1) in the publisher, alter publication drop table successfully
>> removes(PublicationDropTables) the table from the catalogue
>> pg_publication_rel
>> 2) in the subscriber, alter subscription refresh publication
>> successfully removes the table from the catalogue pg_subscription_rel
>> (AlterSubscription_refresh->RemoveSubscriptionRel)
>> so far so good
>>
>
> Here, it should register the worker to stop on commit, and then on
> commit it should call AtEOXact_ApplyLauncher to stop the apply worker.
> Once the apply worker is stopped, the corresponding WALSender will
> also be stopped. Something here is not happening as per expected
> behavior.
>
>> 3) after the insertion into the table in the publisher(remember that
>> it's dropped from the publication in (1)), the walsender process is
>> unable detect that the table has been dropped from the publication
>> i.e. it doesn't look at the pg_publication_rel catalogue or some
>> other, but it only does is_publishable_relation() check which returns
>> true in pgoutput_change(). Maybe the walsender should look at the
>> catalogue pg_publication_rel in is_publishable_relation()?
>>
>
> We must be somewhere checking pg_publication_rel before sending the
> decoded change because otherwise, we would have sent the changes for
> the table which are not even part of this publication. I think you can
> try to create a separate table that is not part of the publication
> under test and see how the changes for that are filtered.

I find that pgoutput_change() use a hash table RelationSyncCache to
cache the publication info for tables.  When we drop tables from the
publication, the RelationSyncCache doesn't updated, so it replicate
records.

-- 
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: logical replication worker accesses catalogs in error context callback
Next
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: Track replica origin progress for Rollback Prepared