RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Date: 2025-06-10 06:25:34
Message-ID: OS0PR01MB5716C959EBC9030CB0798F48946AA@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 7:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the V33 patch set which includes the following changes:
> >
>
> Few comments:
> 1.
> + if (sub->enabled)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> + errmsg("cannot set option %s for enabled subscription",
> + "retain_conflict_info")));
>
> Isn't it better to call CheckAlterSubOption() for this check, as we do
> for failover and two_phase options?

Moved.

>
> 2.
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 set (retain_conflict_info=true);
> ERROR: cannot set option retain_conflict_info for enabled subscription
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 disable;
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 set (retain_conflict_info=true);
> WARNING: information for detecting conflicts cannot be purged when
> the subscription is disabled
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
>
> The above looks odd to me because first we didn't allow setting the
> option for enabled subscription, and then when the user disabled the
> subscription, a WARNING is issued. Isn't it better to give NOTICE
> like: "enable the subscription to avoid accumulating deleted rows for
> detecting conflicts" in the above case?

Yes, a NOTICE would be better.

I think we normally only describe the current situation of the operation in a
NOTICE message, and the suggested message sounds like a hint.
So I used the following message:

"deleted rows will continue to accumulate for detecting conflicts until the subscription is enabled"

>
> Also in this,
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 set (retain_conflict_info=true);
> WARNING: information for detecting conflicts cannot be fully retained
> when "track_commit_timestamp" is disabled
> WARNING: information for detecting conflicts cannot be purged when
> the subscription is disabled
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
>
> What do we mean by this WARNING message? If track_commit_timestamp is
> not enabled, we won't be able to detect certain conflicts, including
> update_delete, but how can it lead to not retaining information
> required for conflict detection? BTW, shall we consider giving ERROR
> instead of WARNING for this case because without
> track_commit_timestamp, there is no benefit in retaining deleted rows?
> If we just want to make the user aware to enable
> track_commit_timestamp to detect conflicts, then we can even consider
> making this a NOTICE.

I think it's an unexpected case that track_commit_timestamp is not enabled, so
NOTICE may not be appropriate. Giving ERROR is also OK, but since user can
change the track_commit_timestamp setting at anytime after creating/modifying a
subscription, we can't catch all cases, so we considered simply issuing a
warning directly and document this case.

> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 Enable;
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 set (retain_conflict_info=false);
> ERROR: cannot set option retain_conflict_info for enabled subscription
> postgres=# Alter subscription sub1 disable;
> WARNING: information for detecting conflicts cannot be purged when
> the subscription is disabled
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
>
> Here, we should have a WARNING like: "deleted rows to detect conflicts
> would not be removed till the subscription is enabled"; this should be
> followed by errdetail like: "Consider setting retain_conflict_info to
> false."

Changed as suggested.

Here is the V35 patch set which includes the following changes:

0001:
No change.

0002:
* Added an errdetail for reserved slot name error per off-list discussion with Shveta.
* Moves the codes in launcher's foreach loop to a new function to improve the readability.

0003:
* Addressed all above comments sent by Amit.
* Adjusted some comments per off-list discussion with Amit.
* Check track_commit_timestamp when enabling the subscription. This is to avoid
passing track_commit_timestamp as a parameter to the check function.

0004:
Rebased

0005:
Rebased

0006:
Rebased

0007:
Rebased

0008:
Rebased

Best Regards,
Hou zj

Attachment Content-Type Size
v35-0003-Add-a-retain_conflict_info-option-to-subscriptio.patch application/octet-stream 96.3 KB
v35-0001-Maintain-the-oldest-non-removable-transaction-ID.patch application/octet-stream 43.5 KB
v35-0002-Maintain-the-replication-slot-in-logical-launche.patch application/octet-stream 20.5 KB
v35-0004-Introduce-a-new-GUC-max_conflict_retention_durat.patch application/octet-stream 28.8 KB
v35-0005-Re-create-the-replication-slot-if-the-conflict-r.patch application/octet-stream 6.8 KB
v35-0006-Add-a-tap-test-to-verify-the-management-of-the-n.patch application/octet-stream 7.2 KB
v35-0007-Support-the-conflict-detection-for-update_delete.patch application/octet-stream 25.6 KB
v35-0008-Allow-altering-retain_conflict_info-for-enabled-.patch application/octet-stream 28.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-06-10 06:37:18 Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-06-10 06:09:08 Re: Question on error code selection in conflict detection