Re: Added schema level support for publication.

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Added schema level support for publication.
Date: 2021-01-10 09:58:58
Message-ID: CAFiTN-u_m0cq7Rm5Bcu9EW4gSHG94WaLuxLfibwE-o7+Lea2GQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:14 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think this feature can be useful, in case a user has a lot of tables
> > to publish inside a schema. Having said that, I wonder if this feature
> > mandates users to create the same schema with same
> > permissions/authorizations manually on the subscriber, because logical
> > replication doesn't propagate any ddl's so are the schema or schema
> > changes? Or is it that the list of tables from the publisher can go
> > into a different schema on the subscriber?
> >
> > Since the schema can have other objects such as data types, functions,
> > operators, I'm sure with your feature, non-table objects will be
> > skipped.
> >
> > As Amit pointed out earlier, the behaviour when schema dropped, I
> > think we should also consider when schema is altered, say altered to a
> > different name, maybe we should change that in the publication too.
> >
> > In general, what happens if we have some temporary tables or foreign
> > tables inside the schema, will they be allowed to send the data to
> > subscribers?
> >
> > And, with this feature, since there can be many huge tables inside a
> > schema, the initial table sync phase of the replication can take a
> > while.
> >
> > Say a user has created a publication for a schema with hundreds of
> > tables in it, at some point later, can he stop replicating a single or
> > some tables from that schema?
> >
> > IMO, it's better to have the syntax - CREATE PUBLICATION
> > production_publication FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA production - just
> > added IN between for all tables and schema.
> >
> > Say a user has a schema with 121 tables in it, and wants to replicate
> > only 120 or 199 or even lesser tables out of it, so can we have some
> > skip option to the new syntax, something like below?
> > CREATE PUBLICATION production_publication FOR ALL TABLES SCHEMA
> > production WITH skip = marketing, accounts, sales; --> meaning is,
> > replicate all the tables in the schema production except marketing,
> > accounts, sales tables.
>
> One more point - if the publication is created for a schema with no or
> some initial tables, will all the future tables that may get added to
> the schema will be replicated too?
>

I expect this should be the behavior.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2021-01-10 11:22:42 Inconsistent "<acronym>" use
Previous Message Noah Misch 2021-01-10 09:43:48 Re: Spurious "apparent wraparound" via SimpleLruTruncate() rounding