Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 4:44 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:56 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was just thinking about what are the most practical use cases where
> > a user would need multiple active writer nodes. Most applications
> > typically function well with a single active writer node. While it's
> > beneficial to have multiple nodes capable of writing for immediate
> > failover (e.g., if the current writer goes down), or they select a
> > primary writer via consensus algorithms like Raft/Paxos, I rarely
> > encounter use cases where users require multiple active writer nodes
> > for scaling write workloads.
>
> Thank you for the feedback. In the scenario with a single writer node
> and a subscriber with RCI enabled, we have not observed any
> regression.  Please refer to the test report at [1], specifically test
> cases 1 and 2, which involve a single writer node. Next, we can test a
> scenario with multiple (2-3) writer nodes publishing changes, and a
> subscriber node subscribing to those writers with RCI enabled, which
> can even serve as a good use case of the conflict detection we are
> targeting through RCI enabling.

+1

> > One common use case for multiple active writer nodes is in
> > geographically distributed systems. Here, a dedicated writer in each
> > zone can significantly reduce write latency by sending writes to the
> > nearest zone.
> >
> > In a multi-zone replication setup with an active writer in each zone
> > and data replicated across all zones, performance can be impacted by
> > factors like network latency. However, if such configurations are
> > implemented wisely and subscriptions are managed effectively, this
> > performance impact can be minimized.
> >
> > IMHO, the same principle applies to this case when
> > ‘retain_conflict_info’ is set to ON. If this setting is enabled, it
> > should only be used where absolutely essential. Additionally, the user
> > or DBA must carefully consider other factors. For instance, if they
> > use a single subscriber in each zone and subscribe to everything
> > across all zones, performance will significantly degrade. However, if
> > managed properly by subscribing only to data relevant to each zone and
> > using multiple subscribers for parallel apply of different
> > tables/partitions to reduce delay, it should work fine.
> >
>
> Strongly agree with this. We tested scenarios involving multiple
> subscribers, each subscribing to exclusive data,  as well as
> publishers using row filters. In both cases, no regressions were
> observed. Please refer to the test results at [2] and [3].

Right, thanks for pointing me to the related test cases.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google