Re: Logical Replication of sequences
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1K9L3vXQnKJSwk=o-fvQZgshDZtcN52Bs4hpLvir8SLJg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: Logical Replication of sequences ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Logical Replication of sequences
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 4:53 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Regarding whether we can avoid creating slot/origin for seq-only publication. > I think the main challenge lies in ensuring the apply worker operates smoothly > without a replication slot. Currently, the apply worker uses the > START_REPLICATION command with a replication slot to acquire the slot on the > publisher. To bypass this, it's essential to skip starting the replication and > specifically, avoid entering the LogicalRepApplyLoop(). > > To address this, I thought to implement a separate loop dedicated to > sequence-only subscriptions. Within this loop, the apply worker would only call > functions like ProcessSyncingSequencesForApply() to manage sequence > synchronization while periodically checking for any new tables added to the > subscription. If new tables are detected, the apply worker would exit this loop > and enter the LogicalRepApplyLoop(). > > I chose not to consider allowing the START_REPLICATION command to operate > without a logical slot, as it seems like an unconventional approach requiring > modifications in walsender and to skip logical decoding and related processes. > > Another consideration is whether to address scenarios where tables are > subsequently removed from the subscription, given that slots and origins would > already have been created in such cases. > > Since it might introduce addition complexity to the patches, and considering > that we already allow slot/origin to be created for empty subscription, it might > also be acceptable to allow it to be created for sequence-only subscription. So, > I chose to add some comments to explain the reason for it in latest version. > > Origin case might be slightly easier to handle, but it could also require some > amount of implementations. Since origin is less harmful than a replication slot > and maintaining it does not have noticeable overhead, it seems OK to me to > retain the current behaviour and add some comments in the patch to clarify the > same. > I agree that avoiding to create a slot/origin for sequence-only subscription is not worth the additional complexity at other places, especially when we do create them for empty subscriptions. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: