Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 at 13:29, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 2:37 PM
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:13 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, March 27, 2023 8:08 PM Amit Kapila
> > <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:07 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 2:52 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest taking a couple of steps back from the minutiae of the
> > > > > > patch, and spending some hard effort thinking about how the thing
> > > > > > would be controlled in a useful fashion (that is, a real design
> > > > > > for the filtering that was mentioned at the very outset), and
> > > > > > about the security issues, and about how we could get to a
> > committable
> > > patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed. I'll try to summarize the discussion we have till now on
> > > > > this and share my thoughts on the same in a separate email.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The idea to control what could be replicated is to introduce a new
> > > > publication option 'ddl' along with current options 'publish' and
> > > > 'publish_via_partition_root'. The values of this new option could be
> > > > 'table', 'function', 'all', etc. Here 'all' enables the replication of
> > > > all supported DDL commands. Example usage for this would be:
> > > > Example:
> > > > Create a new publication with all ddl replication enabled:
> > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR ALL TABLES with (ddl = 'all');
> > > >
> > > > Enable table ddl replication for an existing Publication:
> > > > ALTER PUBLICATION pub2 SET (ddl = 'table');
> > > >
> > > > This is what seems to have been discussed but I think we can even
> > > > extend it to support based on operations/commands, say one would like
> > > > to publish only 'create' and 'drop' of tables. Then we can extend the
> > > > existing publish option to have values like 'create', 'alter', and 'drop'.
> > > >
> > > > Another thing we are considering related to this is at what level
> > > > these additional options should be specified. We have three variants
> > > > FOR TABLE, FOR ALL TABLES, and FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA that enables
> > > > replication. Now, for the sake of simplicity, this new option is
> > > > discussed to be provided only with FOR ALL TABLES variant but I think
> > > > we can provide it with other variants with some additional
> > > > restrictions like with FOR TABLE, we can only specify 'alter' and
> > > > 'drop' for publish option. Now, though possible, it brings additional
> > > > complexity to support it with variants other than FOR ALL TABLES
> > > > because then we need to ensure additional filtering and possible
> > > > modification of the content we have to send to downstream. So, we can
> > even
> > > decide to first support it only FOR ALL TABLES variant.
> > > >
> > > > The other point to consider for publish option 'ddl = table' is
> > > > whether we need to allow replicating dependent objects like say some
> > > > user-defined type is used in the table. I guess the difficulty here
> > > > would be to identify which dependents we want to allow.
> > > >
> > > > I think in the first version we should allow to replicate only some of
> > > > the objects instead of everything. For example, can we consider only
> > > > allowing tables and indexes in the first version? Then extend it in a phased
> > > manner?
> > >
> > > I think supporting table related stuff in the first version makes sense and the
> > > patch size could be reduced to a suitable size.
> >
> > Based on the discussion, I split the patch into four parts: Table DDL
> > replication(0001,0002), Index DDL replication(0003), ownership stuff for table
> > and index(0004), other DDL's replication(0005).
> >
> > In this version, I mainly tried to split the patch set, and there are few
> > OPEN items we need to address later:
> >
> > 1) The current publication "ddl" option only have two values: table, all. We
> > also need to add index and maybe other objects in the list.
> >
> > 2) Need to improve the syntax stuff. Currently, we store the option value of
> > the "with (ddl = xx)" via different columns in the catalog, the
> > catalog(pg_publication) will have more and more columns as we add
> > support
> > for logical replication of other objects in the future. We could store it as
> > an text array instead.
> >
> > OTOH, since we have proposed some other more flexible syntax to -hackers,
> > the current
> > syntax might be changed which might also solve this problem.
> >
> > 3) The test_ddl_deparse_regress test module is not included in the set,
> > because
> > I think we also need to split it into table stuff, index stuff and others,
> > we can share it after finishing that.
> >
> > 4) The patch set could be spitted further to make it easier for reviewer like:
> > infrastructure for deparser, deparser, logical-decoding, built-in logical
> > replication, We can do it after some analysis.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS0PR01MB571646874A3E165D939
> > 99A9D94889%40OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
>
> The patch needs a rebase due to a recent commit da324d6, here is the rebased version.

Replication of the following index statement crashes while applying it
in the subscriber:
create table test(c1 int, c2 int, c3 int, c4 varchar);
create unique index concurrently idx1 on test(c1);

The backtrace for the same is:
#3 0x00007fc830442476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig(at)entry=6) at
../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26
#4 0x00007fc8304287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79
#5 0x00005628760a8afd in ExceptionalCondition
(conditionName=0x5628762e5340 "nestLevel > 0 && (nestLevel <=
GUCNestLevel || (nestLevel == GUCNestLevel + 1 && !isCommit))",
fileName=0x5628762e482f "guc.c",
lineNumber=2224) at assert.c:66
#6 0x00005628760cc0db in AtEOXact_GUC (isCommit=true, nestLevel=2) at
guc.c:2224
#7 0x0000562875e2a5fb in apply_handle_ddl (s=0x7ffc30ca1850) at worker.c:3483
#8 0x0000562875e2a72a in apply_dispatch (s=0x7ffc30ca1850) at worker.c:3555
#9 0x0000562875e2ad0e in LogicalRepApplyLoop (last_received=25688408)
at worker.c:3810
#10 0x0000562875e2c56b in start_apply (origin_startpos=0) at worker.c:4628
#11 0x0000562875e2cf3f in ApplyWorkerMain (main_arg=0) at worker.c:4918

Regards,
Vignesh