Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

Hi On 03/02/16 03:25, Steve Singer wrote: The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, failed Here is some more re

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

Craig Ringer wrote: > Improving this probably needs DDL deparse to be smarter. Rather than just > emitting something that can be reconstructed into the SQL text of the DDL > it needs to emit one or more steps that are semantically the same but allow > us to skip the rewrite. Along the lines of: >

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 17 February 2016 at 18:39, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Ok, what about the following plan: > > 1. Support custom WAL records (as far as I know 2ndQuadrant has such > patch). > 2. Add one more function to logical decoding allowing to deal with custom > records. > > So the idea is that we someho

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

Ok, what about the following plan: 1. Support custom WAL records (as far as I know 2ndQuadrant has such patch). 2. Add one more function to logical decoding allowing to deal with custom records. So the idea is that we somehow record DDL in WAL (for example using executor hook), then them are

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 17 February 2016 at 16:27, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-02-17 09:33:56 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Some DDL operations don't translate well to a series of replicatable > > actions. The case I hit the most is > > > >ALTER TABLE mytable ADD COLUMN somecolumn sometype NOT NULL DEFAULT >

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 17 February 2016 at 16:24, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. I have to agree with your arguments that in > general case replication of DDL statement using logical decoding seems to > be problematic. But we are mostly considering logical decoding in quite > limited cont

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 2016-02-17 09:33:56 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > Some DDL operations don't translate well to a series of replicatable > actions. The case I hit the most is > >ALTER TABLE mytable ADD COLUMN somecolumn sometype NOT NULL DEFAULT > some_function(); > > This is executed (simplified) by taking

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

Hi Craig, Thanks for your explanation. I have to agree with your arguments that in general case replication of DDL statement using logical decoding seems to be problematic. But we are mostly considering logical decoding in quite limited context: replication between two identical Postgres data

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 17 February 2016 at 00:54, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > DDL support is what it's missed for now. > > TBH, based on experience with DDL replication and deparse in BDR, it's going to be missing for a while yet too, or at least not comprehensively present without caveats or exceptions. Some DDL op

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:14:26PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: > > On 12/31/2015 03:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the > > >pglogical_output [1] module (which is ob

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:14:26PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: > On 12/31/2015 03:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the > >pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to > >compile). > > This is fantastic! Howe

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 01/26/2016 10:43 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 23 January 2016 at 11:17, Steve Singer > wrote: ** Schema changes involving rewriting big tables Sometimes you have a DDL change on a large table that will involve a table rewrite and the best way of deploy

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, failed Here is some more review +- `pglogical.replication_set_add_table

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 12/31/2015 03:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). This is fantastic! However, history presents itself here and PostgreSQL in the past has not "blessed"

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 23 January 2016 at 11:17, Steve Singer wrote: > > 2) Does this patch provide a set of logical replication features that meet > many popular use-cases > > Below I will review some use-cases and try to assess how pglogical meets > them. > > ** Streaming Postgresql Upgrade > > pg_upgrade is grea

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 26 January 2016 at 20:33, leo wrote: > Hi Steve Singer, > >I find the pglogical package has updated, I reinstall the new RPM > package > and test again. But I find the same error in subscription node after I run > pglogical.create_subscription command: > > Please don't side-track threads a

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

Hi Steve Singer, I find the pglogical package has updated, I reinstall the new RPM package and test again. But I find the same error in subscription node after I run pglogical.create_subscription command: Error message: < 2016-01-26 12:23:59.642 UTC >LOG: worker process: pglogical appl

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested This reply will covers a 10,000 foot level review of the feature (some of my

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 17 January 2016 at 14:46, leo wrote: > I also run into same problem and waiting for bug fix. > please update if new patch has published. > > There's a point release coming soon that'll incorporate these fixes and a number of others. It'll be posted here in a few days. -- Craig Ringer

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

I also run into same problem and waiting for bug fix. please update if new patch has published. THX -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/pglogical-logical-replication-contrib-module-tp5879755p5882564.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nab

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 01/15/2016 12:07 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: That's bug, fixed. Can you posted an updated patch with whatever fixes you have so far made? There are several statuses the table goes through, during the COPY it's in synchronizing status, so next logical step seemed to be synchronized. Maybe it

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 2016-01-10 20:57, Steve Singer wrote: On 01/09/2016 01:30 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: I'm not really sure what to do to 'recover' my cluster at this point so I'll send this off and rebuild my cluster and start over. I had a setup test1--->test2

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 2016-01-09 19:30, Steve Singer wrote:\ I am going to send my comments/issues out in batches as I find them instead of waiting till I look over everything. Thanks for looking at this! Yes going in batches/steps makes sense, this is huge patch. I find this part of the documentation a bit

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 01/09/2016 01:30 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: I'm not really sure what to do to 'recover' my cluster at this point so I'll send this off and rebuild my cluster and start over. I had a setup test1--->test2 (with 2 tables in the default set) I the

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). The pglogical contrib module provides extension which does the master-slave logical replication base

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On 12/31/2015 06:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). Hi, make check gives me for extra in ../../contrib/pglogical_output contrib/pglogical; do make

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

... and this is why we don't post while jetlagged and tired. The patch on the prior mail is the output plugin. Wrong thread, wrong filename. It's the output plugin update needed for the pglogical downstream in this thread. Corrected post of v5 output plugin here: http://www.postgresql.org/messag

Re: [HACKERS] pglogical - logical replication contrib module

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the > pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to compile). > Hi, Impressive stuff! Apparently this depends on a newer, yet-to-be-published versio