Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoDj+c4LXf2y4ESR-gVyv9d8V0G4R8R9pn-PcmT5zPzYcg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:33 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. We might want to consider which role inserts the conflict info into the history table. For example, if any table created by a user can be used as the history table for a subscription and the conflict info insertion is performed by the subscription owner, we would end up having the same security issue that was addressed by the run_as_owner subscription option. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
pgsql-hackers by date: