Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Mike Lissner <mlissner(at)michaeljaylissner(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?
Date: 2018-12-13 01:06:30
Message-ID: 0dc10006-a214-c8d0-d59f-e6fceb6a1c27@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 12/12/18 3:19 PM, Mike Lissner wrote:
> This sounds *very* plausible. So I think there are a few takeaways:
>
> 1. Should the docs mention that additive changes with NOT NULL
> constraints are bad?

It's not the NOT NULL it's the lack of a DEFAULT. In general a column
with a NOT NULL and no DEFAULT is going to to bite you sooner or later:)
At this point I have gathered enough of those bite marks to just make it
my policy to always provide a DEFAULT for a NOT NULL column.

>
> 2. Is there a way this could work without completely breaking
> replication? For example, should Postgresql realize replication can't
> work in this instance and then stop it until schemas are back in sync,
> like it does with other incompatible schema changes? That'd be better
> than failing in this way and is what I'd expect to happen.

Not sure as there is no requirement that a column has a specified
DEFAULT. This is unlike PK and FK constraint violations where the
relationship is spelled out. Trying to parse all the possible ways a
user could get into trouble would require something on the order of an
AI and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

>
> 3. Are there other edge cases like this that aren't well documented that
> we can expect to creep up on us? If so, should we try to spell out
> exactly *which* additive changes *are* OK?

Not that I know of. By their nature edge cases are rare and often are
dealt with in the moment and not pushed out to everybody. The only
solution I know of is pretesting your schema change/replication setup on
a dev installation.

>
> This feels like a major "gotcha" to me, and I'm trying to avoid those. I
> feel like the docs are pretty lacking here and that others will find
> themselves in similarly bad positions.

Logical replication in core(not the pglogical extension) appeared for
the first time in version 10. On the crawl/walk/run spectrum it is
moving from crawl to walk. The docs will take some time to be more
complete. Just for the record my previous post was sketching out a
possible scenario not an ironclad answer. If you think the answer is
plausible and a 'gotcha' I would file a bug:

https://www.postgresql.org/account/login/?next=/account/submitbug/

>
> Better schema migration docs would surely help, too.
>
> Mike
>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Lissner 2018-12-13 07:40:21 Re: Errors with schema migration and logical replication — expected?
Previous Message Ravi Krishna 2018-12-13 00:16:50 Re: explain analyze cost