Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication
Date: 2024-08-01 11:53:16
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KwqAUGDV3trUZf4hkrUYO3yzwjmBqYtoyFAPMFXpHy3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:26 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 04. general
>
> According to the documentation [1], there is another constraint "exclude", which
> can cause another type of conflict. But this pattern cannot be logged in detail.
>

As per docs, "exclusion constraints can specify constraints that are
more general than simple equality", so I don't think it satisfies the
kind of conflicts we are trying to LOG and then in the future patch
allows automatic resolution for the same. For example, when we have
last_update_wins strategy, we will replace the rows with remote rows
when the key column values match which shouldn't be true in general
for exclusion constraints. Similarly, we don't want to consider other
constraint violations like CHECK to consider as conflicts. We can
always extend the basic functionality for more conflicts if required
but let's go with reporting straight-forward stuff first.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yasir 2024-08-01 11:57:04 Re: Memory growth observed with C++ application consuming libpq.dll on Windows
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2024-08-01 11:33:11 Re: Adding OLD/NEW support to RETURNING