Based on the above image, there are certain tables I want to be in the Internal Database (right hand side). The other tables I want to be replicated in the external database.
In reality there's only one set of values that SHOULD NOT be replicated across. The rest of the database can be replicated. Basically the actual price columns in the prices table cannot be replicated across. It should stay within the internal database.
Because the vendors are external to the network, they have no access to the internal app.
My plan is to create a replicated version of the same app and allow vendors to submit quotations and picking items.
Let's say the replicated tables are at least quotations and quotation_line_items. These tables should be writeable (in terms of data for INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs) at both the external database and the internal database. Hence at both databases, the data in the quotations and quotation_line_items table are writeable and should be replicated across in both directions.
The data in the other tables are going to be replicated in a single direction (from internal to external) except for the actual raw prices columns in the prices table.
The quotation_line_items table will have a price_id column. However, the raw price values in the prices table should not appear in the external database.
Ultimately, I want the data to be consistent for the replicated tables on both databases. I am okay with synchronous replication, so a bit of delay (say, a couple of second for the write operations) is fine.
I came across pglogical https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/pglogical/tree/REL2_x_STABLE
and they have the concept of PUBLISHER and SUBSCRIBER.
I cannot tell based on the readme which one would be acting as publisher and subscriber and how to configure it for my situation.
That won't work. With the setup you are dreaming of, you will necessarily end up with replication conflicts.
How do you want to prevent that data are modified in a conflicting fashion in the two databases? If you say that that won't happen, think again.
I believe that you would be much better off using a single database with two users: one that can access the “secret” table and one that cannot.
If you want to restrict access only to certain columns, use a view. Simple views are updateable in PostgreSQL.
It is possible with BDR replication which uses pglogical. On a basic level by allocating ranges of key ids to each node so writes are possible in both locations without conflict. However BDR is now a commercial paid for product.
Related
Currently I've one physical machine with few SSD disks and PostgreSQL fresh installation:
I'll load ~1-2Tb of data in few distinct tables (they've not interconnection between themselves) where each table comprises distinct data entity.
I think about two approaches:
Create DB (with corresponding table for data entity) on each disk for each entity.
Create one DB but store each table for corresponding data entity on separate disks.
So, my questions is as follows: what approach is preferred and which can be achieved with less cost?
Eagerly waiting for your advices, comrades
You can answer the question yourself.
Are the data used by the same application?
Are the data from these tables joined?
Should these tables always be started and stopped together and have the same PostgreSQL version?
If yes, then they had best be stored together in a single database. Create three logical volumes that is striped across your SSDs: one for the data, one for pg_wal, one for the logs.
If not, you might be best off with a database or a database cluster per table.
I've been reading about logical replication in PostgreSQL, which seems to be a very good solution for sharing a small number of tables among several databases. My case is even simpler, as my subscribers will only use source tables in a read-only fashion.
I know that I can add extra columns to a subscribed table in the subscribing node, but what if I only want to import a subset of the whole set of columns of a source table? Is it possible or will it throw an error?
For example, my source table product, has a lot of columns, many of them irrelevant to my subscriber databases. Would it be feasible to create replicas of product with only the really needed columns at each subscriber?
The built in publication/subscription method does not support this. But the logical replication framework also supports any other decoding plugin you can write (or get someone else to write) and install, so you could make this happen that way. It looks like pglogical already supports this ("Selective replication of table columns at publisher side", but I have never tried to use this feature myself).
As of v15, PostgreSQL supports publishing a table partially, indicating which columns must be replicated out of the whole list of columns.
A case like this can be done now:
CREATE PUBLICATION users_filtered FOR TABLE users (user_id, firstname);
See https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-createpublication.html
I have a monolithic application that currently uses a PostgreSQL DB and the schemas are set up as you would expect for most relational databases with various table data being linked back to the user via FKs on the user_id.
I'm trying to learn more about microservices am trying to migrate my python API to a microservice architecture. I have a reasonable understanding of how I'm going to break up the larger app into smaller parts, however, I'm not entirely clear on how I'm supposed to deal with the data side of things.
I understand that one single large DB is against general design principles of microservices but I'm not clear on what the alternative would be.
My biggest concern is cascading across individual databases that would hold microservice data. In a simple rdb, I can just cascade on delete and the DB will handle the work across the various tables. In the case of microservices, how would that work? Would I need to have a separate service that handles deleting user data across the other service DBs?
I don't really understand how I would migrate a traditional application with a relational DB to a microservice architecture?
EDIT:
To clarify - a specific architectural/design problem I'm facing is as follows:
I have split up my application into a few microservices. The ones that are in my mind still relational are:
Geolocation - A service that checks geometry data, records in PostGIS, and returns certain information. A primary purpose is to record the location of a particular user for referencing later
Image - A simple upload service to upload images and store meta data in the db.
Load-Image - A simple service that returns a random set of images based on parameters such as location, and user profile data such as Age, Gender, etc
Profile - A service that simply manages user data such as Age, Gender, etc
Normally, these three items would have a table each in a larger db rather than their own individual dbs. Filtering images by say location and age is a very simple JOIN and filter.
How would something like that work in a microservice architecture? If the data is held in different dbs entirely how would I setup the logic to filter the data? I could duplicate data that doesn't change often like profile info and add it to a MongoDB document that would contain image data including user_id and profile data - however, location data can change regularly and constant updates doesn't sound practical.
What would be the best approach? Or should I stick with a shared RDBMS for just those few services?
It comes down to the duplication of data, why we want it, and how we manage it.
Early in our careers we were taught about the duplication of data to make it redundant, for example in database replication or backups. We were also taught that data can be modelled in a relational manner, with constraints enforcing the integrity of the model. In fact, the integrity of the model is sacrosanct. Without integrity, how can you have consistency? The answer is that you can't. Kinda.
When you work with distributed systems and service orientation, you do so because you want to minimise interactions thereby reducing coupling between components. However, there is a cost to this. The more distributed your architecture, the less coupling it has, and the more duplication of data will be necessary. This is taken to an extreme with microservices, where effectively the same data may be present in many different places, in varying degrees of consistency.
Instead of being bad, however, in this context data duplication is an essential feature of your system. It is an enabler of an architectural style with many great benefits. Put another way, without duplication of data, you get less distribution, you get more coupling, which makes your system more expensive to build, own, and change.
So, now we understand duplication of data and why we want it, let's move onto how we manage having lots of duplication. Let's try an example:
In a relational database, let's say we have a table called Customers, which contains a customer ID, and customer details, and another table called Orders which contains the order ID, customer ID, and the order details. Let's say we also have an ordering application, which needs to delete all the customer's orders if the customer is deleted for GDPR.
Because we are migrating our system to microservices, we decide to create a service called Customers.
So we create a service with the following operation:
DELETE /customers/{customerId} - deletes a customer
We create another service called Orders with the following operations:
GET /orders/customers/{customerId} - gets all the orders for a customer
DELETE /orders/{orderId} - deletes an order
We build a UX screen for deleting a customer. The UX first calls the orders service to get all the orders for the customer. Then it iterates over the list of orders, calling the orders service to delete the order. Then it calls the customers service to delete the user.
This example is very simplistic, but as you can see, there is no option but to orchestrate the "Delete Customer" operation from the caller, which in this case is the user interface. Of course, what would be a single atomic transaction in a database does not translate to multiple HTTP/s calls, so it is possible that some of the calls may not succeed, leaving the system as a whole in an inconsistent state. In this instance the inconsistency would need to be resolved via some recovery mechanism.
In a microservice architecture, we have both the option, either use database per service or a shared database. There are advantages and disadvantages to both the pattern. Database per service architecture is the best practice but when the monolithic application has lots of function, procedure or database-specific feature on database level then we can use the Shared database approach, I know this is not the best practice if you have time and bandwidth then you should go for database per service.
As your concern is cascading over individual databases, you need to remove cascading from the database and implement global transaction handling in your application and execute all cascading related queries from that transaction.
I'd like to preface this by saying I'm not a DBA, so sorry for any gaps in technical knowledge.
I am working within a microservices architecture, where we have about a dozen or applications, each supported by its Postgres database instance (which is in RDS, if that helps). Each of the microservices' databases contains a few tables. It's safe to assume that there's no naming conflicts across any of the schemas/tables, and that there's no sharding of any data across the databases.
One of the issues we keep running into is wanting to analyze/join data across the databases. Right now, we're relying on a 3rd Party tool that caches our data and makes it possible to query across multiple database sources (via the shared cache).
Is it possible to create read-replicas of the schemas/tables from all of our production databases and have them available to query in a single database?
Are there any other ways to configure Postgres or RDS to make joining across our databases possible?
Is it possible to create read-replicas of the schemas/tables from all of our production databases and have them available to query in a single database?
Yes, that's possible and it's actually quite easy.
Setup one Postgres server that acts as the master.
For each remote server, create a foreign server then you then use to create a foreign table that makes the data accessible from the master server.
If you have multiple tables in multiple server that should be viewed as a single table in the master, you can setup inheritance to make all those tables appear like one. If you can define a "sharding" key that identifies a distinct attribute between those server, you can even make Postgres request the data only from the specific server.
All foreign tables can be joined as if they were local tables. Depending on the kind of query, some (or a lot) of the filter and join criteria can even be pushed down to the remote server to distribute the work.
As the Postgres Foreign Data Wrapper is writeable, you can even update the remote tables from the master server.
If the remote access and joins is too slow, you can create materialized views based on the remote tables to create a local copy of the data. This however means that it's not a real time copy and you have to manage the regular refresh of the tables.
Other (more complicated) options are the BDR project or pglogical. It seems that logical replication will be built into the next Postgres version (to be released a the end of this year).
Or you could use a distributed, shared-nothing system like Postgres-XL (which probably is the most complicated system to setup and maintain)
We have a SaaS application where each tenant has its own database in Postgres. How would I apply a patch to all the databses? For example if I want to add a table or add a column to a table, I have to either write a program that loops through all databases and execute a SQL against them or using pgadmin, go through them one by one.
Is there smarter and/or faster way?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a smarter way.
Don't create a new database for each tenant. If everything is in one database then you only need to alter one database.
Pick one database, alter each table to have the column TENANT and add this to the primary key. Then insert into this database every record for all tenants and drop the other databases (obviously considerably more work than this as your application will need to be changed).
The differences with your approach are extensively discussed elsewhere:
What problems will I get creating a database per customer?
What are the advantages of using a single database for EACH client?
Multiple schemas versus enormous tables
Practicality of multiple databases per client vs one database
Multi-tenancy - single database vs multiple database
If you don't put everything in one database then I'm afraid you have to alter them all individually, and doing it programatically would be simplest.
At a higher level, all multi-tenant applications follow one of three approaches:
One tenant's data lives in one database,
One tenant's data lives in one schema, or
Add a tenant_id / account_id column to your tables (shared schema).
I usually find that developers use the following criteria when they evaluate these different approaches.
Isolation: Since you can put each tenant into its own database in one hand, and have tenants share the same table on the other, this becomes the most apparent dimension. If you provide your users raw SQL access or you're in a regulated industry such as healthcare, you may need strict guarantees from your database. That said, PostgreSQL 9.5 comes with row level security policies that makes this less of a concern for most applications.
Extensibility: If your tenants are sharing the same schema (approach #3), and your tenants have fields that varies between them, then you need to think about how to merge these fields.
This article on multi-tenant databases has a great summary of different approaches. For example, you can add a dozen columns, call them C1, C2, and so forth, and have your application infer the actual data in this column based on the tenant_id. PostgresQL 9.4 comes with JSONB support and natively allows you to use semi-structured fields to express variations between different tenants' data.
Scaling: Another criteria is how easily your database would scale-out. If you create a tenant per database or schema (#1 or #2 above), your application can make use of existing Ruby Gems or [Django packages][1] to simplify app integration. That said, you'll need to manually manage your tenants' data and the machines they live on. Similarly, you'll need to build your own sharding logic to propagate foreign key constraints and ALTER TABLE commands.
With approach #3, you can use existing open source scaling solutions, such as Citus. For example, this blog post describes how to easily shard a multi-tenant app with Postgres.
it's time for me to give back to the community :) So after 4 years, our multi-tenant platform is in production and I would like to share the following observations/experiences with all of you.
We used a database per each tenant. This has given us extreme flexibility as the size of the databases in the backups are not huge and hence we can easily import them into our staging environment for customers issues.
We use Liquibase for database development and upgrades. This has been a tremendous help to us, allowing us to package the entire build into a simple war file. All changes are easily versioned and managed very efficiently. There is a bit of learning curve here an there but nothing substantial. 2-5 days can significantly save you time.
Given that we use Spring/JPA/Hibernate, we use a technique called Dynamic Data Source Routing. So when a user logs-in, we find the related datasource with a lookup and connect them to the session to the right database. That's also when the Liquibase scripts get applied for updates.
This is, for now, I will come back with more later on.
Well, there are problems with one database for all tenants in our case for sure.
The backup file gets huge and becomes almost not practical hard to manage
For troubleshooting, we need to restore customer's data in our dev env, we just use that customer's backup file and usually the file is not as big as if we were to use one database for all customers.
Again, Liquibase has been key in allowing to manage updates across all the tenants seamlessly and without any issues. Without Liquibase, I can see lots of complications with this approach. So Liquibase, Liquibase and more Liquibase.
I also suspect that we would need a more powerful hardware to manage a huge database with large joins across millions of records vs much lighter database with much smaller queries.
In case of problems, the service doesn't go down for everyone and there will be limited to one or few tenants.
In general, for our purposes, this has been a great architectural decision and we are benefiting from it every day. One time we had one customer that didn't have their archiving active and their database size grew to over 3 GB. With offshore teams and slower internet as well as storage/bandwidth prices, one can see how things may become complicated very quickly.
Hope this helps someone.
--Rex