Message-ID: <9da4d877048f767d36283fca1a3d133112fceca7.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan
 <andrew@dunslane.net>,  PostgreSQL-development
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 23:38:31 -0800
In-Reply-To: <92BEDE2A-8043-4F50-9BD8-46977A9A2972@enterprisedb.com>
References: <9DFC88D3-1300-4DE8-ACBC-4CEF84399A53@enterprisedb.com>
	 <c1c334a2-5d85-687f-f0dc-0ac8c422ca1a@dunslane.net>
	 <CD02D159-7260-4247-888F-2CFA7AD3798D@enterprisedb.com>
	 <6BB4451E-7B1B-474C-BD1F-DB7531E720C6@enterprisedb.com>
	 <aa28945f9f348307c8ac833a937b5fca732668b8.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <6A2B0FF6-CC86-48CE-B0D3-5401AA5CFEA9@enterprisedb.com>
	 <b6f6ed921b6e219875801857204b14bbc8782e5e.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CF56AC0D-7495-4E8D-A48F-FF38BD8074EB@enterprisedb.com>
	 <CAA4eK1KHE_xmxk==CqTcTzceC_n00tRWBLm3DGUWhaaPTguz3A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1BB0A553-3FE9-4A91-A975-6F9D8C157FBD@enterprisedb.com>
	 <CAA4eK1LBjtqHH2h4TO7FHG=FJRfygfkeEb7AFj-dh6rqg3xqUA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CC5DAC9C-F767-4256-BFEF-32D5A566D254@enterprisedb.com>
	 <7C62876F-5D19-4B5C-96AC-5590B10A49B2@enterprisedb.com>
	 <66f55a6b9ff7bdd6bfd0d05e8fd8351690e69e23.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <92BEDE2A-8043-4F50-9BD8-46977A9A2972@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9da4d877048f767d36283fca1a3d133112fceca7.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 12:23 -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > 
> > We need to do permission checking for WITH CHECK OPTION and RLS.
> > The
> > patch right now allows the subscription to write data that an RLS
> > policy forbids.
> 
> Version 4 of the patch, attached, no longer allows RLS to be
> circumvented, but does so in a course-grained fashion.

Committed.

I tried to do some performance testing to see if there was any impact
of the extra catalog + ACL checks. Logical replication seems slow
enough -- something like 3X slower than local inserts -- that it didn't
seem to make a difference.

To test it, I did the following:
  1. sent a SIGSTOP to the logical apply worker
  2. loaded more data in publisher
  3. made the subscriber a sync replica
  4. timed the following:
    a. sent a SIGCONT to the logical apply worker
    b. insert a single tuple on the publisher side
    c. wait for the insert to return, indicating that logical
       replication is done up to that point

Does anyone have a better way to measure logical replication
performance?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis