Re: Support logical replication of DDLs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Jonathan S. Katz |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Date | |
Msg-id | e947fa21-24b2-f922-375a-d4f763ef3e4b@postgresql.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>) |
Responses |
Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/16/23 2:43 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 2/16/23 2:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2023-Feb-16, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> >>> On 2/16/23 12:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >>>> I don't think this is the fault of logical replication. Consider that >>>> for the backend server, the function source code is just an opaque >>>> string that is given to the plpgsql engine to interpret. So there's no >>>> way for the logical DDL replication engine to turn this into runnable >>>> code if the table name is not qualified. >>> >>> Sure, that's fair. That said, the example above would fall under a >>> "typical >>> use case", i.e. I'm replicating functions that call tables without >>> schema >>> qualification. This is pretty common, and as logical replication becomes >>> used for more types of workloads (e.g. high availability), we'll >>> definitely >>> see this. >> >> Hmm, I think you're saying that replay should turn check_function_bodies >> off, and I think I agree with that. > > Yes, exactly. +1 I drilled into this a bit more using the SQL standard bodies (BEGIN ATOMIC) to see if there were any other behaviors we needed to account for. Overall, it worked well but I ran into one issue. First, functions with "BEGIN ATOMIC" ignores "check_function_bodies" which is by design based on how this feature works. We should still turn "check_function_bodies" to "off" though, per above discussion. In the context of DDL replication, "BEGIN ATOMIC" does support schema-unqualified functions, presumably because it includes the parsed content? I created an updated example[1] where I converted the SQL functions to use the standard syntax and I returned the table names to be schema unqualified. This seemed to work, but I ran into a weird case with this function: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.calendar_manage(room_id int, calendar_date date) RETURNS void LANGUAGE SQL BEGIN ATOMIC WITH delete_calendar AS ( DELETE FROM calendar WHERE room_id = $1 AND calendar_date = $2 ) INSERT INTO calendar (room_id, status, calendar_date, calendar_range) SELECT $1, c.status, $2, c.calendar_range FROM calendar_generate_calendar($1, tstzrange($2, $2 + 1)) c; END; This produced an error on the subscriber, with the following message: 2023-02-16 20:58:24.096 UTC [26864] ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "calendar_1" at character 322 2023-02-16 20:58:24.096 UTC [26864] CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_18658" during message type "DDL" in transaction 980, finished at 0/C099A7D8 2023-02-16 20:58:24.096 UTC [26864] STATEMENT: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.calendar_manage ( IN room_id pg_catalog.int4, IN calendar_date pg_catalog.date ) RETURNS pg_catalog.void LANGUAGE sql VOLATILE PARALLEL UNSAFE CALLED ON NULL INPUT SECURITY INVOKER COST 100 BEGIN ATOMIC WITH delete_calendar AS ( DELETE FROM public.calendar WHERE ((calendar_1.room_id OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) calendar_manage.room_id) AND (calendar_1.calendar_date OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) calendar_manage.calendar_date)) ) INSERT INTO public.calendar (room_id, status, calendar_date, calendar_range) SELECT calendar_manage.room_id, c.status, calendar_manage.calendar_date, c.calendar_range FROM public.calendar_generate_calendar(calendar_manage.room_id, pg_catalog.tstzrange((calendar_manage.calendar_date)::timestamp with time zone, ((calendar_manage.calendar_date OPERATOR(pg_catalog.+) 1))::timestamp with time zone)) c(status, calendar_range); END This seemed to add an additional, incorrect reference to the origin table for the "room_id" and "calendar_date" attributes within the CTE of this function. I don't know if this is directly related to the DDL replication patch, but reporting it as I triggered the behavior through it. Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://gist.github.com/jkatz/fe29006b724fd6f32ee849a96dc01608
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: