Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LxnsEx5sMbQkK5MHAgXKPROMQXQ0n=fKMwz+UsfKQaMQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 12:23 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 6:16 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback Bharath
>
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:13 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking into another thread where we provide an error table for
> > > COPY [1], it requires the user to pre-create the error table. And
> > > inside the COPY command we will validate the table, validation in that
> > > context is a one-time process checking for: (1) table existence, (2)
> > > ability to acquire a sufficient lock, (3) INSERT privileges, and (4)
> > > matching column names and data types. This approach avoids concerns
> > > about the user's DROP or ALTER permissions.
> > >
> > > Our requirement for the logical replication conflict log table
> > > differs, as we must validate the target table upon every conflict
> > > insertion, not just at subscription creation. A more robust
> > > alternative is to perform validation and acquire a lock on the
> > > conflict table whenever the subscription worker starts. This prevents
> > > modifications (like ALTER or DROP) while the worker is active. When
> > > the worker gets restarted, we can re-validate the table and
> > > automatically disable the conflict logging feature if validation
> > > fails.  And this can be enabled by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION by setting the
> > > option again.
> >
> > Having to worry about ALTER/DROP and adding code to protect seems like
> > an overkill.
>
> IMHO eventually if we can control that I feel this is a good goal to
> have.  So that we can avoid failure during conflict insertion.  We may
> argue its user's responsibility to not alter the table and we can just
> check the validity during create/alter subscription.
>

If we compare conflict_history_table with the slot that gets created
with subscription, one can say the same thing about slots. Users can
drop the slots and whole replication will stop. I think this table
will be created with the same privileges as the owner of a
subscription which can be either a superuser or a user with the
privileges of the pg_create_subscription role, so we can rely on such
users.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chao Li
Date:
Subject: Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL
Next
From: Japin Li
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2