On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 16:12, Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:33 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > This approach seems better to me. I have created a patch with the
> > above approach.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Shlok Kyal
>
> Some quick comments on the patch:
> 1. In doc/src/sgm
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:33 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> This approach seems better to me. I have created a patch with the
> above approach.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Shlok Kyal
Some quick comments on the patch:
1. In doc/src/sgml/ref/create_subscription.sgml:
+has partitioned table with foreign
On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 18:19, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 6:53 AM Álvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > But the non-idiomatic locking of pg_partitioned_table appears to
> > continue to be the pain point of this patch. My impression is that
> > using a lock is the wrong approach to
On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 6:53 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> But the non-idiomatic locking of pg_partitioned_table appears to
> continue to be the pain point of this patch. My impression is that
> using a lock is the wrong approach to solve the concurrency problem.
> Maybe we can use a ConditionVari
Hello,
I think reimplementing list_member_oid() under a different name
(is_ancestor_member_relids) is pointless and should not be done.
It also appears to me that we haven't nailed the error messages just
yet. I tried to fix it upthread, but didn't really get it correct. For
instance, consider
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 at 19:57, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Apr-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> > 2.
> > + * We also take a ShareLock on pg_partitioned_table to restrict addition
> > + * of new partitioned table which may contain a foreign partition while
> > + * publication is being created. XXX
On 2025-Apr-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> 2.
> + * We also take a ShareLock on pg_partitioned_table to restrict addition
> + * of new partitioned table which may contain a foreign partition while
> + * publication is being created. XXX this is quite weird actually.
>
> This change was added to resolv
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 09:43, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
>
> 07.04.2025 03:27, Álvaro Herrera пишет:
>
> On 2025-Apr-01, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> I have modified the comment in create_publication.sgml and also added
> comment in the restrictions section of logical-replication.sgml.
> I have also added
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 18:09, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here's the additional changes I made here before giving up on this.
> I think it needs some additional rethinking, not going to happen for 18.
>
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
The changes shared by you in [1], look good to me an
Here's the additional changes I made here before giving up on this.
I think it needs some additional rethinking, not going to happen for 18.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The Gord often wonders why people threaten never to come back after they'v
On 2025-Apr-07, Sergey Tatarintsev wrote:
> I think this is a wrong assumption:
>
> ScanKeyInit(&key[keycount++], Anum_pg_class_relispartition,
> BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_BOOLEQ, BoolGetDatum(false));
>
> In this case sch5.part1 is partitioned table, but it also partition of table
> in different
As promised, here's a rundown of the changes I did, mostly in order the
patch shows them:
- I reworded the documentation changes to read more coherent with the
surrounding text.
- It seemed wrong to have check_publication_add_relation() have the
relation first as argument and publication later, s
07.04.2025 03:27, Álvaro Herrera пишет:
On 2025-Apr-01, Shlok Kyal wrote:
I have modified the comment in create_publication.sgml and also added
comment in the restrictions section of logical-replication.sgml.
I have also added a more detailed explanation in comment of
'check_foreign_tables'
I
On 2025-Apr-01, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> I have modified the comment in create_publication.sgml and also added
> comment in the restrictions section of logical-replication.sgml.
> I have also added a more detailed explanation in comment of
> 'check_foreign_tables'
>
> I have attached the updated v11 p
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 10:36, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
>
> 01.04.2025 21:48, Shlok Kyal пишет:
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 16:35, Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> On 2025-Mar-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:17, Álvaro Herrera
> >>> wrote:
> Also, surely we should d
01.04.2025 21:48, Shlok Kyal пишет:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 16:35, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Mar-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:17, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
Also, surely we should document this restriction in the SGML docs
somewhere.
I have added comment in create_publicat
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 16:35, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:17, Álvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > > Also, surely we should document this restriction in the SGML docs
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > I have added comment in create_publication.sg
On 2025-Mar-28, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:17, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Also, surely we should document this restriction in the SGML docs
> > somewhere.
>
> I have added comment in create_publication.sgml
Hmm, okay, but "We cannot" is not the style used in the documentation.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:17, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> One thing that bothers me a bit about this is that there's no single
> code comment where this restriction it documented in full; in fact it
> doesn't seem documented anywhere, only in the commit message.
>
> I think check_foreign_tables() is
One thing that bothers me a bit about this is that there's no single
code comment where this restriction it documented in full; in fact it
doesn't seem documented anywhere, only in the commit message.
I think check_foreign_tables() is a good place to add an explanatory
comment; other places can re
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 21:18, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 15:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 20:13, vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 12:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have used the changes suggested by you. Also I have updated the
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 15:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 20:13, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 12:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > >
> > > I have used the changes suggested by you. Also I have updated the
> > > comments and the function name.
> >
> > There is another
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 20:13, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 12:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > I have used the changes suggested by you. Also I have updated the
> > comments and the function name.
>
> There is another concurrency issue possible:
> +/* Check if a partitioned table has
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 12:59, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> I have used the changes suggested by you. Also I have updated the
> comments and the function name.
There is another concurrency issue possible:
+/* Check if a partitioned table has a foreign partition */
+bool
+check_partrel_has_foreign_table(F
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 20:12, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:50, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have fixed the issue. Attached the updated v6 patch.
>
> There is another concurrency issue:
> In case of create publication for all tables with
> publish_via_partition_root we will ca
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:50, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
>
> I have fixed the issue. Attached the updated v6 patch.
There is another concurrency issue:
In case of create publication for all tables with
publish_via_partition_root we will call check_foreign_tables:
@@ -876,6 +876,10 @@ CreatePublication(P
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 11:25, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > I have handled the above cases and added tests for the same.
>
> There is a concurrency issue with the patch:
> +check_partrel_has_foreign_table(Form_pg_class relform)
> +{
> + bool
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 16:55, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> I have handled the above cases and added tests for the same.
There is a concurrency issue with the patch:
+check_partrel_has_foreign_table(Form_pg_class relform)
+{
+ boolhas_foreign_tbl = false;
+
+ if (relform->relkind ==
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 16:11, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 18:31, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 at 17:32, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1428,6 +1427,12 @@ check_foreign_tables_in_schema(Oid schemaid)
> > > errdetail("foreign table \"%s\" is a
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 14:14, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Feb-05, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > We can maintain the behavior you suggested when the
> > PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT option is set to false. However, when
> > PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT is true, the table data is copied from the
> > root
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 18:31, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 at 17:32, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1428,6 +1427,12 @@ check_foreign_tables_in_schema(Oid schemaid)
> > errdetail("foreign table \"%s\" is a partition of
> > partitioned table \"%s\"",
> >
On 2025-Feb-05, vignesh C wrote:
> We can maintain the behavior you suggested when the
> PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT option is set to false. However, when
> PUBLISH_VIA_PARTITION_ROOT is true, the table data is copied from the
> root table (as intended by the user), which will also include the
> fo
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 21:21, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Feb-04, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > We should throw an error for partitioned tables that contain foreign
> > partitions, as this would include the data from these foreign tables
> > during the initial sync, while incremental changes would n
On 2025-Feb-04, vignesh C wrote:
> We should throw an error for partitioned tables that contain foreign
> partitions, as this would include the data from these foreign tables
> during the initial sync, while incremental changes would not be
> replicated.
Hmm, I would support the idea of allowing
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 at 17:32, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> @@ -1428,6 +1427,12 @@ check_foreign_tables_in_schema(Oid schemaid)
> errdetail("foreign table \"%s\" is a partition of
> partitioned table \"%s\"",
>get_rel_name(foreign_tbl_relid),
> parent_
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 10:38, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
>
> Ok, but maybe it will be correct to raise an WARNING (or at least LOG)
> that some tables was skipped during publication. What do you think?
>
> And I think we need check tables which was really published in case of
> 'FOR ALL TABLES' and
30.01.2025 19:02, Shlok Kyal пишет:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 19:21, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
29.01.2025 12:16, Shlok Kyal пишет:
Hi,
As part of a discussion in [1], I am starting this thread to address
the issue reported for foreign tables.
Logical replication of foreign tables is not suppo
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 19:21, Sergey Tatarintsev
wrote:
>
>
> 29.01.2025 12:16, Shlok Kyal пишет:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As part of a discussion in [1], I am starting this thread to address
> > the issue reported for foreign tables.
> >
> > Logical replication of foreign tables is not supported, and we t
29.01.2025 12:16, Shlok Kyal пишет:
Hi,
As part of a discussion in [1], I am starting this thread to address
the issue reported for foreign tables.
Logical replication of foreign tables is not supported, and we throw
an error in this case. But when we create a publication on a
partitioned tabl
39 matches
Mail list logo
