RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication

From: "Kumar, Sachin" <ssetiya(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication
Date: 2023-03-20 12:46:54
Message-ID: 58b85e30b4d8474582d35f19ad277c63@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Amit,

> From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a couple of questions.
> > >
> > > Q1.
> > >
> > > What happens if the subscriber already has some tables present? For
> > > example, I did not see the post saying anything like "Only if the
> > > table does not already exist then it will be created".
> > >
> > My assumption was the if subscriber is doing initial schema sync , It
> > does not have any conflicting database objects.
> >
>
> Can't we simply error out in such a case with "obj already exists"?
> This would be similar to how we deal with conflicting rows with unique/primary
> keys.
Right this is the default behaviour , We will run pg_restore with --single_transaction,
So if we get error while executing a create table the whole pg_restore will fail and
user will notified.
Regards
Sachin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-03-20 12:58:19 Re: Dropped and generated columns might cause wrong data on subs when REPLICA IDENTITY FULL
Previous Message John Naylor 2023-03-20 12:33:56 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum