Hi All,
Il 18/01/18 17:48, Simon Riggs ha scritto:
> On 17 January 2018 at 17:07, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Things I am less convinced about:
>>
>> The patch will cascade truncation on downstream if cascade was specified
>> on the upstream, that can potentially be dangerous and we either should
>> not do it and only truncate the tables which were truncated upstream
>> (but without restricting because of FKs), leaving the data inconsistent
>> on downstream (like we do already with DELETE or UPDATE). Or maybe make
>> it into either subscription or publication option so that user can chose
>> the behaviour here as I am sure some people will want it to cascade (but
>> the default should still IMHO be to not cascade as that's safer).
>
> I agree the default should be to NOT cascade.
>
> If someone wants cascading as a publication option, that can be added later.
>
I agree that not replicating the CASCADE option is the best option
according to POLA principle.
>>> + /* logicalrep_rel_close call not needed, because ExecuteTruncateGuts
>>> + * already closes the relations. Setting localrel to NULL in the map entry
>>> + * is still needed.
>>> + */
>>> + rel->localrel = NULL;
>>
>> This is somewhat ugly. Perhaps the ExecuteTruncateGuts should track
>> which relations it opened and only close those and the rest should be
>> closed by caller? That should also remove the other ugly part which is
>> that the ExecuteTruncateGuts modifies the input list. What if caller
>> wanted to use those relations it sent as parameter later?
>
> Agreed
>
Attached a new version of the patch addressing these issues.
Regards,
Marco
--
Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
marco.nenciarini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it