From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION |
Date: | 2021-01-12 06:38:29 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+8K7DrMD_qyKYoQ4+5tfvPxuGvPXEMgdtxNRSKr+qmRA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:39 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:05 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:51 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > While providing thoughts on the design in [1], I found a strange
> > > behaviour with the $subject. The use case is shown below as a sequence
> > > of steps that need to be run on publisher and subscriber to arrive at
> > > the strange behaviour. In step 5, the table is dropped from the
> > > publication and in step 6, the refresh publication is run on the
> > > subscriber, from here onwards, the expectation is that no further
> > > inserts into the publisher table have to be replicated on to the
> > > subscriber, but the opposite happens i.e. the inserts are still
> > > replicated to the subscriber. ISTM as a bug. Let me know if I'm
> > > missing anything.
> > >
> >
> > Did you try to investigate what's going on? Can you please check what
> > is the behavior if, after step-5, you restart the subscriber and
> > separately try creating a new subscription (maybe on a different
> > server) for that publication after step-5 and see if that allows the
> > relation to be replicated? AFAIU, in AlterSubscription_refresh, we
> > remove such dropped rels and stop their corresponding apply workers
> > which should stop the further replication of such relations but that
> > doesn't seem to be happening in your case.
>
> Here's my analysis:
> 1) in the publisher, alter publication drop table successfully
> removes(PublicationDropTables) the table from the catalogue
> pg_publication_rel
> 2) in the subscriber, alter subscription refresh publication
> successfully removes the table from the catalogue pg_subscription_rel
> (AlterSubscription_refresh->RemoveSubscriptionRel)
> so far so good
>
Here, it should register the worker to stop on commit, and then on
commit it should call AtEOXact_ApplyLauncher to stop the apply worker.
Once the apply worker is stopped, the corresponding WALSender will
also be stopped. Something here is not happening as per expected
behavior.
> 3) after the insertion into the table in the publisher(remember that
> it's dropped from the publication in (1)), the walsender process is
> unable detect that the table has been dropped from the publication
> i.e. it doesn't look at the pg_publication_rel catalogue or some
> other, but it only does is_publishable_relation() check which returns
> true in pgoutput_change(). Maybe the walsender should look at the
> catalogue pg_publication_rel in is_publishable_relation()?
>
We must be somewhere checking pg_publication_rel before sending the
decoded change because otherwise, we would have sent the changes for
the table which are not even part of this publication. I think you can
try to create a separate table that is not part of the publication
under test and see how the changes for that are filtered.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hou, Zhijie | 2021-01-12 06:43:09 | RE: Add Nullif case for eval_const_expressions_mutator |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-01-12 06:15:21 | Re: O(n^2) system calls in RemoveOldXlogFiles() |