Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/17/17 08:47, Euler Taveira wrote: > Patch works fine. However, I don't see any documentation about > supporting different schemas for logical replication. Is it an oversight? I have added more documentation about that. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/14/17 21:36, Petr Jelinek wrote: > I tried something bit different which seems cleaner to me - use the > pstate->r_table instead of ad-hock locally made up range table and fill > that using standard addRangeTableEntryForRelation. Both in tablesync and > in DoCopy instead of the old coding.

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-17 Thread Euler Taveira
2017-04-14 22:36 GMT-03:00 Petr Jelinek : > I tried something bit different which seems cleaner to me - use the > pstate->r_table instead of ad-hock locally made up range table and fill > that using standard addRangeTableEntryForRelation. Both in tablesync and > in

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 14/04/17 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we >>> disallow it for v10 and add a TODO? >>> >> >> Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize >> cstate->range_table in

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 14/04/17 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we >>> disallow it for v10 and add a TODO? >>> >> >> Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize >> cstate->range_table

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we >> disallow it for v10 and add a TODO? >> > > Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize > cstate->range_table in tablesync which causes this bug. The CopyState >

Re: [HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-14 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 13/04/17 05:04, Euler Taveira wrote: > Hi, > > If a certain table has different schemas and the subscriber table has an > unmatched column with a not null constraint, the logical replication > crashes with the above stack trace. > > [snip] > > Are we prepared to support different schemas in

[HACKERS] Different table schema in logical replication crashes

2017-04-12 Thread Euler Taveira
Hi, If a certain table has different schemas and the subscriber table has an unmatched column with a not null constraint, the logical replication crashes with the above stack trace. -- publisher CREATE TABLE test (a integer, b varchar not null, c numeric not null, PRIMARY KEY(a)); -- subscriber