public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: 'Melih Mutlu' <[email protected]>
To: Euler Taveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 03:22:04 +0000
Message-ID: <TYCPR01MB8373367B78B034CECA9E070EED4E9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGPVpCRjdFHa71Qqd4Xj22UTa5=-NBUPgtT==X0w7TfWUZrpUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGPVpCQvAziCLknEnygY0v1-KBtg+Om-9JHJYZOnNPKFJPompw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1KxYj=3rYHbPMQvNSFytHdyS5=q0D3A1T=uerC7HMFCtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGPVpCR15YfE=4hthY6S2OC5G0nj0QM4oE2bV769+FANM_UvwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGPVpCRjdFHa71Qqd4Xj22UTa5=-NBUPgtT==X0w7TfWUZrpUg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi


Few more minor comments.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:04 AM Melih Mutlu <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	My main concern is to break a scenario that was previously working (14
> -> 15) but after a subscriber upgrade
> 	it won't (14 -> 16).
> 
> Fair concern. Some cases that might break the logical replication with version
> upgrade would be:
...
> 3- Copying in binary format would work with the same schemas. Currently,
> logical replication does not require the exact same schemas in publisher and
> subscriber.
> This is an additional restriction that comes with the COPY command.
> 
> If a logical replication has been set up with different schemas and subscription
> is created with the binary option, then yes this would break things.
> This restriction can be clearly stated and wouldn't be unexpected though.
> 
> I'm also okay with allowing binary copy only for v16 or later, if you think it would
> be safer and no one disagrees with that.
> What are your thoughts?
I agree with the direction to support binary copy for v16 and later.

IIUC, the binary format replication with different data types fails even during apply phase on HEAD.
I thought that means, the upgrade concern only applies to a scenario that the user executes
only initial table synchronizations between the publisher and subscriber
and doesn't replicate any data at apply phase after that. I would say
this isn't a valid scenario and your proposal makes sense.


Best Regards,
	Takamichi Osumi

view thread (18+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: RE: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format
  In-Reply-To: <TYCPR01MB8373367B78B034CECA9E070EED4E9@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox