From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Runqi Tian <runqidev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, li jie <ggysxcq(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Date: | 2023-06-16 10:31:37 |
Message-ID: | CAJpy0uDaubBHyqPc1k0OysuBYDOVdoUgTWG4jXDCYj-OVSU8hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:26 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 06:49:42PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > We have to choose one of the approaches between 0001 and 0008. I feel
> > we don't need an intermediate ObjTree representation as that adds
> > overhead and an additional layer which is not required. As mentioned
> > in my previous email I think as a first step we should merge 0001 and
> > 0008 and avoid having an additional ObjTree layer unless you or others
> > feel we need it. I think that will reduce the overall patch size and
> > help us to focus on one of the approaches.
>
> Similar impression here. I found ObjTree actually confusing compared
> to the JSON blobs generated.
>
+1
Please find the new set of patches. It has below changes:
Patch-set Structure related changes to make it more organised:
1) Object-tree removal code (patch 0008 earlier) is now merged to
patch 0001. Now there is no reference of object-tree in the code.
2) Subscription tap-test for DDL Replication (patch 0006 earlier) is
now merged to patch 0003 (DDL Replication one), as it was a single
file change and thus seems more apt to be part of the DDL-Rep patch.
3) test_ddl_deparse_regress module (patch 0004 earlier) is now pulled
out for the time being.
Rest of the changes:
1) CTAS and SELECT INTO support removal. Initial draft aims to support
create,drop and alter-table first.
2) Doc compilation issue fix for 'doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml'.
3) Verbose option removal. Current patch now WAL logs only the
information needed to construct the original DDL statement. Missing
clauses are not part of the final DDL string. I will upload support
for 'expanded' on/off in the next version.
4) Some code refactoring and optimization.
With these changes, I hope the patch-set is somewhat easier to review.
thanks
Shveta
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Deparser-for-Table-DDL-commands-and-exten-2023_06_16.patch | application/octet-stream | 135.0 KB |
0002-Enhance-the-event-trigger-to-support-DDL--2023_06_16.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.4 KB |
0004-Apply-the-DDL-change-as-that-same-user-th-2023_06_16.patch | application/octet-stream | 59.3 KB |
0003-DDL-replication-for-Table-DDL-commands-2023_06_16.patch | application/octet-stream | 236.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Weiller | 2023-06-16 11:52:56 | Re: Question: Multiple pg clusters on one server can be reached with the standard port. |
Previous Message | Thomas Markus | 2023-06-16 10:04:05 | Re: Question: Multiple pg clusters on one server can be reached with the standard port. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2023-06-16 11:44:53 | Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions |
Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-16 10:24:43 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |