| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add into REFRESH PUBLICATION parameter exception_behaviour |
| Date: | 2026-02-17 04:22:38 |
| Message-ID: | db5cc186-6ffd-40a9-9a6d-61e0ab063c0c@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/2/26 05:07, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:04 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION mysub
>> REFRESH PUBLICATION (WITH exception_behaviour = ‘skip’);
>>
>
> It will lead to skipping all future changes to that table by apply
> worker as we skip applying till the table is in READY state. So, all
> changes for transactions will get applied but the ones where we
> skipped copy which could lead to inconsistency. I think the better way
> to allow skip copying of initial data for particular tables is to
> someway provision copy_data = off for a set of tables.
Hmm, in my mind, there should be a FAIL table state introduced to let
users know that a specific table has not been synchronised, and they
need to check and repeat a smaller part of the job.
Or do you mean that a synchronising table might already contain some
data, and that it is impossible to undo the sync and repeat it?
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov,
pgEdge
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-02-17 04:45:07 | Re: pgstat include expansion |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-02-17 04:15:44 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |