> From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 7:45 AM Masahiko Sawada > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 5:29 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Below are my review comments for the PoC patch 0001. > > > > > > In addition, the patch needed rebasing, and, after I rebased it > > > locally in my private environment there were still test failures: > > > a) The 'make check' tests fail but only in a minor way due to > > > changes colname > > > b) the subscription TAP test did not work at all for me -- many errors. > > > > Thank you for reviewing the patch. > > > > While updating the patch, I realized that the current approach won't > > work well or at least has the problem with partition tables. If a > > publication has a partitioned table with publish_via_root = false, the > > subscriber launches tablesync workers for its partitions so that each > > tablesync worker copies data of each partition. Similarly, if it has a > > partition table with publish_via_root = true, the subscriber launches > > a tablesync worker for the parent table. With the current design, > > since the tablesync worker is responsible for both schema and data > > synchronization for the target table, it won't be possible to > > synchronize both the parent table's schema and partitions' schema. > > > > I think one possibility to make this design work is that when publish_via_root > is false, then we assume that subscriber already has parent table and then > the individual tablesync workers can sync the schema of partitions and their > data.
Since publish_via_partition_root is false by default users have to create parent table by themselves which I think is not a good user experience. > And when publish_via_root is true, then the table sync worker is > responsible to sync parent and child tables along with data. Do you think > such a mechanism can address the partition table related cases? >
