We have a requirement that says we should have a copy of all the items that were in our system at one point. The most simple way to explain it would be replication but ignoring the delete statement (INSERT and UPDATE are ok)
Is this possible ? or maybe the better question would be what is the best approach to tackle this kind of problem?
Make a copy/replica of current database and use triggers via dblink from current database to the replica. Use after insert and after update trigger to insert and update data in replica.
So whenever a row insertion/updation take place in current database it will directly reflect to replica.
I'm not sure that I understand the question completely, but I'll try to help:
First (opposite to #Sunit) - I suggest avoiding triggers. Triggers are introducing additional overhead and impacting performance.
The solution I would use (and I'm actually using in few of my projects with similar demands) - don't use DELETE at all. Instead you can add bit (boolean) column called "Deleted", set its default value to 0 (false), and instead of deleting the row you update this field to 1 (true). You'll also need to change your other queries (SELECT) to include something like "WHERE Deleted = 0".
Another option is to continue using DELETE as usual, and to allow deleting records from both primary and replica, but configure WAL archiving, and store WAL archives in some shared directory. This will allow you to moment-in-time recovery, meaning that you'll be able to restore another PostgreSQL instance to state of your cluster in any moment in time (i.e. before the deletion). This way you'll have a trace of deleted records, but pretty complicated procedure to reach the records. Depending on how often deleted records will be checked in the future (maybe they are not checked at all, but simply kept for just-in-case tracking) this approach my also help.
Related
I work with a software that is used by a lot of different clients in several countries, with different needs, rules and constraints on their data.
When I make a change to the database's structure, I have a tool to test it on every client's database, obviously with read-only rights. This means that the best way to test a query like UPDATE table SET x = y WHERE condition
is to call the "read-only part" SELECT x FROM table WHERE condition.
It works but it's not ideal, as sometimes it is writing data that causes problems (mostly deadlocks or timeouts), meaning I can't see the problem until a client suffers from it.
I'm wondering if there is a way to grant write permissions in Postgres, but only when inside a transaction, and force a rollback on every transaction. This way, changes could be tested accurately on real data and still prevent any dev from editing it.
Any ideas?
Edit: the volumes are too large to consider cloning data for every dev who needs to run a query
This sounds similar to creating an audit table to record information about transactions. I would consider using a trigger to write a copy of the data to a "rollback" table/row and then copy the "rollback" table/row back on completion of the update.
Imagine dropping a subscription and recreating it from scratch. Is it possible to ignore existing data during the first synchronization?
Creating a subscription with (copy_data=false) is not an option because I do want to copy data, I just don't want to copy already existing data.
Example: There is a users table and a corresponding publication on the master. This table has 1 million rows and every minute a new row is added. Then we drop the subscription for a day.
If we recreate the subscription with (copy_data=true), replication will not start due to a conflict with already existing data. If we specify (copy_data=false), 1440 new rows will be missing. How can we synchronize the publisher and the subscriber properly?
You cannot do that, because PostgreSQL has no way of telling when the data were added.
You'd have to reconcile the tables by hand (or INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING).
Unfortunately PostgreSQL does not support nice skip options for conflicts yet, but I believe it will be enhanced in the feature.
Based on #Laurenz Albe answer which recommends the use of the statement:
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING.
I believe that it would be better to use the following command which also will take care any possible updates on your data before you start the subscription again:
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE SET...
Finally I have to say that both are dirty solutions as during the execution of the above statement and the creation of the subscription, new lines may have been arrived which will result in losing them until you perform again the custom sync.
I have seen some other suggested solutions using the LSN number from the Postgresql log file...
For me maybe is elegant and safe to delete all the data from the destination table and create the replication again!
I want to periodically export data from db2 and load it in another database for analysis.
In order to do this, I would need to know which rows have been inserted/updated since the last time I've exported things from a given table.
A simple solution would probably be to add a timestamp to every table and use that as a reference, but I don't have such a TS at the moment, and I would like to avoid adding it if possible.
Is there any other solution for finding the rows which have been added/updated after a given time (or something else that would solve my issue)?
There is an easy option for a timestamp in Db2 (for LUW) called
ROW CHANGE TIMESTAMP
This is managed by Db2 and could be defined as HIDDEN so existing SELECT * FROM queries will not retrieve the new row which would cause extra costs.
Check out the Db2 CREATE TABLE documentation
This functionality was originally added for optimistic locking but can be used for such situations as well.
There is a similar concept for Db2 z/OS - you have to check that out as I have not tried this one.
Of cause there are other ways to solve it like Replication etc.
That is not possible if you do not have a timestamp column. With a timestamp, you can know which are new or modified rows.
You can also use the TimeTravel feature, in order to get the new values, but that implies a timestamp column.
Another option, is to put the tables in append mode, and then get the rows after a given one. However, this option is not sure after a reorg, and affects the performance and space utilisation.
One possible option is to use SQL replication, but that needs extra tables for staging.
Finally, another option is to read the logs, with the db2ReadLog API, but that implies a development. Also, just appliying the archived logs into the new database is possible, however the database will remain in roll forward pending.
I am interested in keeping a running history of every change which has happened on some tables in my database, thus being able to reconstruct historical states of the database for analysis purposes.
I am using Postgres, and this MVCC thing just seems like I should be able to exploit it for this purpose but I cannot find any documentation to support this. Can I do it? Is there a better way?
Any input is appreciated!
UPD
I have marked Denis' response as the answer, because he did in fact answer whether MVCC is what I want which was the question. However, the strategy I have settled on is detailed below in case anyone finds it useful:
The Postgres feature that does what I want: online backup/point in time recovery.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/backup-online.html explains how to use this feature but essentially you can set this "write ahead log" to archive mode, take a snapshot of the database (say, before it goes live), then continually archive the WAL. You can then use log replay to recall the state of the database at any time, with the side benefit of having a warm standby if you choose (by continually replaying the new WALs on your standby server).
Perhaps this method is not as elegant as other ways of keeping a history, since you need to actually build the database for every point in time you wish to query, however it looks extremely easy to set up and loses zero information. That means when I have the time to improve my handling of historical data, I'll have everything and will therefore be able to transform my clunky system to a more elegant system.
One key fact that makes this so perfect is that my "valid time" is the same as my "transaction time" for the specific application- if this were not the case I would only be capturing "transaction time".
Before I found out about the WAL, I was considering just taking daily snapshots or something but the large size requirement and data loss involved did not sit well with me.
For a quick way to get up and running without compromising my data retention from the outset, this seems like the perfect solution.
Time Travel
PostgreSQL used to have just this feature, and called it "Time Travel". See the old documentation.
There's somewhat similar functionality in the spi contrib module that you might want to check out.
Composite type audit trigger
What I usually do instead is to use triggers to log changes along with timestamps to archival tables, and query against those. If the table structure isn't going to change you can use something like:
CREATE TABLE sometable_history(
command_tag text not null check (command_tag IN ('INSERT','DELETE','UPDATE','TRUNCATE')),
new_content sometable,
change_time timestamp with time zone
);
and your versioning trigger can just insert into sometable_history(TG_OP,NEW,current_timestamp) (with a different CASE for DELETE, where NEW is not defined).
hstore audit trigger
That gets painful if the schema changes to add new NOT NULL columns though. If you expect to do anything like that consider using a hstore to archive the columns, instead of a composite type. I've already added an implementation of that on the PostgreSQL wiki already.
PITR
If you want to avoid impact on your master database (growing tables, etc), you can alternately use continuous archiving and point-in-time recovery to log WAL files that can, using a recovery.conf, be replayed to any moment in time. Note that WAL files are big and they include not only the tuples you changed, but VACUUM activity and other details. You'll want to run them through clearxlogtail since they can have garbage data on the end if they're partial segments from an archive timeout, then you'll want to compress them heavily for long term storage.
I am using Postgres, and this MVCC thing just seems like I should be able to exploit it for this purpose but I cannot find any documentation to support this. Can I do it?
Not really. There are tools to see dead rows, because auto-vacuuming is so that will eventually be reclaimed.
Is there a better way?
If I get your question right, you're looking into logging slowly changing dimensions.
You might find this recent related thread interesting:
Temporal database design, with a twist (live vs draft rows)
I'm not aware of any tools/products that are built for that purpose.
While this may not be exactly what you're asking for, you can configure Postgresql to log ddl changes. Setting the log_line_prefix parameter (try including %d, %m, and %u) and setting the log_statement parameter to ddl should give you a reasonable history of who made what ddl changes and when.
Having said that, I don't believe logging ddl to be foolproof. For example, consider a situation where:
Multiple schemas have a table with the same name,
one of the tables is altered, and
the ddl doesn't fully qualify the table name (relying on the search path to get it right),
then it may not be possible to know from the log which table was actually altered.
Another option might be to log ddl as above but then have a watcher program perform a pg_dump of the database schema whenever a ddl entry get's logged. You could even compare the new dump with the previous dump and extract just the objects that were changed.
I am considering log-shipping of Write Ahead Logs (WAL) in PostgreSQL to create a warm-standby database. However I have one table in the database that receives a huge amount of INSERT/DELETEs each day, but which I don't care about protecting the data in it. To reduce the amount of WALs produced I was wondering, is there a way to prevent any activity on one table from being recorded in the WALs?
Ran across this old question, which now has a better answer. Postgres 9.1 introduced "Unlogged Tables", which are tables that don't log their DML changes to WAL. See the docs for more info, but at least now there is a solution for this problem.
See Waiting for 9.1 - UNLOGGED tables by depesz, and the 9.1 docs.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is. The WAL logging operates on the page level, which is much lower than the table level and doesn't even know which page holds data from which table. In fact, the WAL files don't even know which pages belong to which database.
You might consider moving your high activity table to a completely different instance of PostgreSQL. This seems drastic, but I can't think of another way off the top of my head to avoid having that activity show up in your WAL files.
To offer one option to my own question. There are temp tables - "temporary tables are automatically dropped at the end of a session, or optionally at the end of the current transaction (see ON COMMIT below)" - which I think don't generate WALs. Even so, this might not be ideal as the table creation & design will be have to be in the code.
I'd consider memcached for use-cases like this. You can even spread the load over a bunch of cheap machines too.