Thread: [PATCH] Fix replica identity mismatch for partitioned tables with publish_via_partition_root
[PATCH] Fix replica identity mismatch for partitioned tables with publish_via_partition_root
From
Mikhail Kharitonov
Date:
Hi hackers, An inconsistency was observed when using logical replication on partitioned tables with the option `publish_via_partition_root = true`: if REPLICA IDENTITY FULL is set only on the parent table, but not on all partitions, logical decoding emits UPDATE and DELETE messages with tag 'O' (old tuple) even for partitions that do not have full replica identity. In those cases, only the primary key columns are included in the message, which contradicts the expected meaning of 'O' and violates the logical replication message protocol: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-logicalrep-message-formats.html This can cause issues in downstream consumers, which interpret the 'O' tag as implying that a full tuple is present. The attached patch resolves the inconsistency by selecting the correct tuple type ('O' vs 'K') based on the replica identity of the actual leaf relation being published, rather than using the setting of the root relation alone. As a result, the format of logical replication messages aligns with the semantics defined by the protocol. Steps to reproduce: 1. Create a partitioned table with REPLICA IDENTITY FULL on the parent and only one of the partitions. 2. Create a publication with `publish_via_partition_root = true`. 3. Perform INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE operations through the root table. 4. Observe via `pg_recvlogical` that for a partition without full replica identity, the logical replication stream contains 'O' records with only key fields. After applying the patch, 'O' is used only when the full row is available, and 'K' is used otherwise - as expected. This patch is based on the current `master` branch as of commit: b3754dcc9ff Best regards, Mikhail Kharitonov
Attachment
Re: [PATCH] Fix replica identity mismatch for partitioned tables with publish_via_partition_root
From
Maxim Orlov
Date:
Hi!
This is probably not the most familiar part of Postgres to me, but does it break anything? Or is it just inconsistency in the replication protocol?
A test for the described scenario would be a great addition. And, if it is feasible, provide an example of what would be broken with the way partitioned tables are replicated now.
There is a chance that the replication protocol for partitioned tables needs to be rewritten, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this. It seems Alvaro Herrera tried this here [0].
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201902041630.gpadougzab7v@alvherre.pgsql
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
Re: [PATCH] Fix replica identity mismatch for partitioned tables with publish_via_partition_root
From
Mikhail Kharitonov
Date:
Hi, Thank you for the feedback. I would like to clarify that the current behavior does not break replication between PostgreSQL instances. The logical replication stream is still accepted by the subscriber, and the data is applied correctly. However, the protocol semantics are violated, which may cause issues for external systems that rely on interpreting this stream. When using publish_via_partition_root = true and setting REPLICA IDENTITY FULL only on the parent table (but not on all partitions), logical replication generates messages with the tag 'O' (old tuple) for updates and deletes even for partitions that do not have full identity configured. In those cases, only key columns are sent, and the rest of the tuple is omitted. This contradicts the meaning of tag 'O', which, according to the documentation [1], indicates that the full old tuple is included. This behavior is safe for the standard PostgreSQL subscriber, which does not rely on the tag when applying changes. However, third-party tools that consume the logical replication stream and follow the protocol strictly can be misled. For example, one of our clients uses a custom CDC mechanism that extracts changes and sends them to Oracle. Their handler interprets the 'O' tag as a signal that the full old row is available. When it is not - the data is processed incorrectly. The attached patch changes the behavior so that the 'O' or 'K' tag is chosen based on the REPLICA IDENTITY setting of the actual partition where the row ends up not only the parent. - If the partition has REPLICA IDENTITY FULL, the full tuple is sent and tagged 'O'. - Otherwise, only the key columns are sent, and the tag 'K' is used. This aligns the behavior with the protocol documentation. I have also included a TAP test: 036_partition_replica_identity.pl, located in src/test/subscription/t/ It demonstrates two cases: - An update/delete on a partition with REPLICA IDENTITY FULL correctly emits an 'O' tag with the full old row. - An update/delete on a partition without REPLICA IDENTITY FULL currently also emits an 'O' tag, but only with key fields - this is the problem. After applying the patch, the second case correctly uses the 'K' tag. This patch is a minimal change it does not alter protocol structure or introduce new behavior. It only ensures the implementation matches the documentation. In the future, we might consider a broader redesign of logical replication for partitioned tables (see [2]), but this is a narrow fix that solves a real inconsistency. Looking forward to your comments. Best regards, Mikhail Kharitonov [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-logicalrep-message-formats.html [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201902041630.gpadougzab7v@alvherre.pgsql On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 5:25 PM Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > This is probably not the most familiar part of Postgres to me, but does it break anything? Or is it just inconsistencyin the replication protocol? > > A test for the described scenario would be a great addition. And, if it is feasible, provide an example of what would bebroken with the way partitioned tables are replicated now. > > There is a chance that the replication protocol for partitioned tables needs to be rewritten, and I sincerely hope thatI am wrong about this. It seems Alvaro Herrera tried this here [0]. > > > [0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201902041630.gpadougzab7v@alvherre.pgsql > > > -- > Best regards, > Maxim Orlov.