On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:23 PM Zheng Li <zhengl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 5:13 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 2:49 AM Zheng Li <zhengl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that a full fledged DDL deparser and DDL replication is too > > > big of a task for one patch. I think we may consider approaching this > > > feature in the following ways: > > > 1. Phased development and testing as discussed in other emails. > > > Probably support table commands first (as they are the most common > > > DDLs), then the other commands in multiple phases. > > > 2. Provide a subscription option to receive the DDL change, raise a > > > notice and to skip applying the change. The users can listen to the > > > DDL notice and implement application logic to apply the change if > > > needed. The idea is we can start gathering user feedback by providing > > > a somewhat useful feature (compared to doing nothing about DDLs), but > > > also avoid heading straight into the potential footgun situation > > > caused by automatically applying any mal-formatted DDLs. > > > > > > > Doesn't this mean that we still need to support deparsing of such DDLs > > which is what I think we don't want? > > I think we can send the plain DDL command string and the search_path > if we don't insist on applying it in the first version. Maybe the > deparser can be integrated later when we're confident that it's > ready/subset of it is ready. >
I think this will have overhead for users that won't need it and we have to anyway remove it later when deparsing of such commands is added. Personally, I don't think we need to do this to catch the apply errors. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
