From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Logical replication from 11.x to 12.x and "unique key violations" |
Date: | 2020-07-20 14:45:31 |
Message-ID: | 229a51af-0860-0ab4-5c91-3f0c197ba682@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 7/20/20 7:22 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>> I have a strange error when using logical replication between a 11.2
>> source database and a 12.3 target.
>>
>> If I create the publication with all needed tables (about 50) at
>> once, I get "duplicate key value violates unique constraint xxx_pkey"
>> errors during the initial replication (when creating the
>> subscription).
>>
>> When create the publication only with a few tables, the initial data
>> sync works without problems. To replicate all tables, I add the
>> tables incrementally to the publication, and refresh the
>> subscription.
>>
>> If I do it like that (step-by-step) everything works fine. Tables
>> that generated the "duplicate key value" error previously will
>> replicate just fine. The tables are quite small, some of them less
>> then 100 rows.
>>
>
> Any pointers where I should start looking to investigate this?
What are the PUBLICATION and SUBSCRIPTION commands being used?
Where is "xxx_pkey" coming from, e.g. sequence?
Where are source and target relative to each other in network/world?
Are there any other errors in log at around the same time that might apply?
Have you looked at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/logical-replication-architecture.html#LOGICAL-REPLICATION-SNAPSHOT?:
30.5.1. Initial Snapshot
Are the tables heavily used when the subscription is invoked?
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thorsten Schöning | 2020-07-20 15:10:23 | Re: How to restore a dump containing CASTs into a database with a new user? |
Previous Message | Francisco Olarte | 2020-07-20 14:44:16 | Re: Improvement for query planner? (no, not about count(*) again ;-)) |