Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Date: 2022-03-16 04:20:25
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JO-B67Qf_ftj_YOCvwbsW=3mk+tXivXHfbxZZBDA-cjg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 7:58 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > 6.
> > > @@ -1583,7 +1649,8 @@ apply_handle_insert(StringInfo s)
> > > TupleTableSlot *remoteslot;
> > > MemoryContext oldctx;
> > >
> > > - if (handle_streamed_transaction(LOGICAL_REP_MSG_INSERT, s))
> > > + if (is_skipping_changes() ||
> > >
> > > Is there a reason to keep the skip_changes check here and in other DML
> > > operations instead of at one central place in apply_dispatch?
> >
> > Since we already have the check of applying the change on the spot at
> > the beginning of the handlers I feel it's better to add
> > is_skipping_changes() to the check than add a new if statement to
> > apply_dispatch, but do you prefer to check it in one central place in
> > apply_dispatch?
> >
>
> I think either way is fine. I just wanted to know the reason, your
> current change looks okay to me.
>
> Some questions/comments
> ======================
>

Some cosmetic suggestions:
======================
1.
+# Create subscriptions. Both subscription sets disable_on_error to on
+# so that they get disabled when a conflict occurs.
+$node_subscriber->safe_psql(
+ 'postgres',
+ qq[
+CREATE SUBSCRIPTION $subname CONNECTION '$publisher_connstr'
PUBLICATION tap_pub WITH (streaming = on, two_phase = on,
disable_on_error = on);
+]);

I don't understand what you mean by 'Both subscription ...' in the
above comments.

2.
+ # Check the log indicating that successfully skipped the transaction,

How about slightly rephrasing this to: "Check the log to ensure that
the transaction is skipped...."?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo NAGATA 2022-03-16 04:33:37 Tab completion for ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW ... SET ACCESS METHOD
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-03-16 03:53:25 Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files