| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: In logical replication concurrent update of partition key creates a duplicate record on standby. |
| Date: | 2018-02-12 23:55:11 |
| Message-ID: | 96d55f92-50c6-e8e2-bdf1-d3f3a329af6f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/8/18 10:54, amul sul wrote:
> Not really, like ExecUpdate for an update of partition key if delete is failed
> then the further insert will be skipped, but you are correct, it might be more
> tricky than I can think -- there is no guarantee that the next insert operation
> which replication worker trying to replicate is part of the update of partition
> key mechanism. How can one identify that an insert operation on one relation is
> related to previously deleting operation on some other relation?
I think you somehow need to stitch this back together in logical
decoding and publish it as an update operation. Otherwise, wrong things
happen. For example, what happens to a publication that is configured
to only publish inserts? What happens to update triggers on the
receiving table? What if the subscriber side is partitioned differently?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2018-02-13 00:06:47 | Re: A space-efficient, user-friendly way to store categorical data |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-12 23:38:36 | Re: rename sgml files? |