Re: Logical Replication WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-09-14 21:17:42 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Gather Relations based o provided by RangeVar list.
> > > + * The gathered tables are locked in access share lock mode.
> > > + */
> > 
> > Why access share? Shouldn't we make this ShareUpdateExclusive or
> > similar, to prevent schema changes?
> > 
> 
> Hm, I thought AccessShare would be enough to prevent schema changes that
> matter to us (which is basically just drop afaik).

Doesn't e.g. dropping an index matter as well?


> > > +                    if (strcmp($1, "replicate_insert") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_insert",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(TRUE), @1);
> > > +                    else if (strcmp($1, "noreplicate_insert") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_insert",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(FALSE), @1);
> > > +                    else if (strcmp($1, "replicate_update") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_update",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(TRUE), @1);
> > > +                    else if (strcmp($1, "noreplicate_update") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_update",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(FALSE), @1);
> > > +                    else if (strcmp($1, "replicate_delete") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_delete",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(TRUE), @1);
> > > +                    else if (strcmp($1, "noreplicate_delete") == 0)
> > > +                        $$ = makeDefElem("replicate_delete",
> > > +                                         (Node *)makeInteger(FALSE), @1);
> > > +                    else
> > > +                        ereport(ERROR,
> > > +                                (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > > +                                 errmsg("unrecognized publication option \"%s\"", $1),
> > > +                                     parser_errposition(@1)));
> > > +                }
> > > +        ;
> > 
> > I'm kind of inclined to do this checking at execution (or transform)
> > time instead.  That allows extension to add options, and handle them in
> > utility hooks.
> > 
> 
> Thant's interesting point, I prefer the parsing to be done in gram.y, but it
> might be worth moving it for extensibility. Although there are so far other
> barriers for that.

Citus uses the lack of such check for COPY to implement copy over it's
distributed tables for example. So there's some benefit.



> > > +    check_subscription_permissions();
> > > +
> > > +    rel = heap_open(SubscriptionRelationId, RowExclusiveLock);
> > > +
> > > +    /* Check if name is used */
> > > +    subid = GetSysCacheOid2(SUBSCRIPTIONNAME, MyDatabaseId,
> > > +                            CStringGetDatum(stmt->subname));
> > > +    if (OidIsValid(subid))
> > > +    {
> > > +        ereport(ERROR,
> > > +                (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
> > > +                 errmsg("subscription \"%s\" already exists",
> > > +                        stmt->subname)));
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > > +    /* Parse and check options. */
> > > +    parse_subscription_options(stmt->options, &enabled_given, &enabled,
> > > +                               &conninfo, &publications);
> > > +
> > > +    /* TODO: improve error messages here. */
> > > +    if (conninfo == NULL)
> > > +        ereport(ERROR,
> > > +                (errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > > +                 errmsg("connection not specified")));
> > 
> > Probably also makes sense to parse the conninfo here to verify it looks
> > saen.  Although that's fairly annoying to do, because the relevant code
> > is libpq :(
> > 
> 
> Well the connection is eventually used (in later patches) so maybe that's
> not problem.

Well, it's nicer if it's immediately parsed, before doing complex and
expensive stuff, especially if that happens outside of the transaction.


> > 
> > > diff --git a/src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c b/src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c
> > > index 65230e2..f3d54c8 100644
> > > --- a/src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c
> > > +++ b/src/backend/nodes/copyfuncs.c
> > 
> > I think you might be missing outfuncs support.
> > 
> 
> I thought that we don't do outfuncs for DDL?

I think it's just readfuncs that's skipped.


> > > +                Length of column name (including the NULL-termination
> > > +                character).
> > > +</para>
> > > +</listitem>
> > > +</varlistentry>
> > > +<varlistentry>
> > > +<term>
> > > +        String
> > > +</term>
> > > +<listitem>
> > > +<para>
> > > +                Name of the column.
> > > +</para>
> > > +</listitem>
> > > +</varlistentry>
> > 
> > Huh, no type information?
> > 
> 
> It's not necessary for the text transfer, it will be if we ever add binary
> data transfer but that will require protocol version bump anyway.

I'm *hugely* unconvinced of this. For one type information is useful for
error reporting and such as well. For another, it's one thing to add a
new protocol message (for differently encoded tuples), and something
entirely different to change the format of existing messages.


> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * COMMIT callback
> > > + */
> > > +static void
> > > +pgoutput_commit_txn(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> > > +                     XLogRecPtr commit_lsn)
> > > +{
> > > +    OutputPluginPrepareWrite(ctx, true);
> > > +    logicalrep_write_commit(ctx->out, txn, commit_lsn);
> > > +    OutputPluginWrite(ctx, true);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Hm, so we don't reset the context for these...
> > 
> 
> What?

We only use & reset the data-> memory context in the change
callback. I'm not sure that's good.



> > This however I'm not following. Why do we need multiple copies of this?
> > And why aren't we doing the assignments in _PG_init?  Seems better to
> > just allocate one WalRcvCalllbacks globally and assign all these as
> > constants.  Then the establishment function can just return all these
> > (as part of a bigger struct).
> > 
> 
> Meh, If I understand you correctly that will make the access bit more ugly
> (multiple layers of structs).

On the other hand, you right now need to access one struct, and pass the
other...



> > This does rather reinforce my opinion that the _PG_init removal in
> > libpqwalreceiver isn't useful.
> 
> I don't see how it helps, you said we'd still return struct from some
> interface so this would be more or less the same?

Or we just set some global vars and use them directly.


Andres