Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

From: Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Date: 2022-04-15 02:08:58
Message-ID: CAAD30UKRGo_VrdFKYOzWLLRnynjU7DC0uw9mb8LWCPFSnOxXAg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> > But then this could be true for DML as well right? Like after
> > replicating the function to the subscriber if we are sending the DML
> > done by function then what's the problem in DDL. I mean if there is
> > no design issue in implementing this then I don't think there is much
> > point in blocking the same or even providing configuration for this.
>
> Agreed. I'll unblock DDLs in functions/procedures and test it out. I
> find out some DDLs in functions are replicated multiple times on the
> subscriber while they should only be replicated once. Still trying to
> figure out why.

Here is the patch unblocking DDLs in function and procedures. Also
fixed a bug where DDL with sub-command may get logged twice.
github commit of the same patch:
https://github.com/zli236/postgres/commit/d0fe6065ee3cb6051e5b026f17b82f5220903e6f

Regards,
Zheng

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0007-Enable-logging-and-replication-of-DDLs-in-function.patch application/octet-stream 17.5 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Perryn Fowler 2022-04-15 08:41:58 Re: Is this a reasonable use for advisory locks?
Previous Message Zheng Li 2022-04-14 20:31:15 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-04-15 02:20:29 Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-04-15 01:59:14 Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse