Re: row filtering for logical replication
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Release cache tuple when no longer needed
- ed0fbc8e5ac9 15.0 landed
-
Add some additional tests for row filters in logical replication.
- ceb57afd3ce1 15.0 landed
-
Fix one of the tests introduced in commit 52e4f0cd47.
- cfb4e209ec15 15.0 landed
-
Allow specifying row filters for logical replication of tables.
- 52e4f0cd472d 15.0 landed
-
Move scanint8() to numutils.c
- cfc7191dfea3 15.0 cited
-
Replace Test::More plans with done_testing
- 549ec201d613 15.0 cited
-
Reduce relcache access in WAL sender streaming logical changes
- 6ce16088bfed 15.0 cited
-
Small cleanups related to PUBLICATION framework code
- c9105dd3660f 15.0 cited
-
Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.
- 8d74fc96db5f 15.0 cited
-
Allow publishing the tables of schema.
- 5a2832465fd8 15.0 cited
-
Doc: improve documentation of CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.
- 1882d6cca161 15.0 cited
-
Add PublicationTable and PublicationRelInfo structs
- 0c6828fa987b 15.0 cited
-
Remove unused argument "txn" in maybe_send_schema().
- 93d573d86571 15.0 cited
-
Add prepare API support for streaming transactions in logical replication.
- 63cf61cdeb7b 15.0 cited
-
Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods
- 201a76183e20 15.0 cited
-
Use l*_node() family of functions where appropriate
- 2b00db4fb0c7 15.0 cited
-
Add support for prepared transactions to built-in logical replication.
- a8fd13cab0ba 15.0 cited
-
Restore the portal-level snapshot after procedure COMMIT/ROLLBACK.
- ef9480509622 11.13 cited
-
Rename a parse node to be more general
- 91d1f2d30210 14.0 landed
-
Remove unused column atttypmod from initial tablesync query
- 4ad31bb2ef25 14.0 landed
-
SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
- 3696a600e229 14.0 cited
On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 10:24 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > to do. AFAIU, the main things we want to prohibit in the filter are: > (a) it doesn't refer to any relation other than catalog in where > clause, Right, because the walsender is using a historical snapshot. > (b) it doesn't use UDFs in any way (in expressions, in > user-defined operators, user-defined types, etc.), Is this a reasonable requirement? Postgres has a long history of allowing UDFs nearly everywhere that a built-in is allowed. It feels wrong to make built-ins special for this feature. > (c) the columns > referred to in the filter should be part of PK or Replica Identity. Why? Also: * Andres also mentioned that the function should not leak memory. * One use case for this feature is when sharding a table, so the expression should allow things like "hashint8(x) between ...". I'd really like to see this problem solved, as well. > I think in the long run one idea to allow UDFs is probably by > explicitly allowing users to specify whether the function is > publication predicate safe and if so, then we can allow such > functions > in the filter clause. This sounds like a better direction. We probably need some kind of catalog information here to say what functions/operators are "safe" for this kind of purpose. There are a couple questions: 1. Should this notion of safety be specific to this feature, or should we try to generalize it so that other areas of the system might benefit as well? 2. Should this marking be superuser-only, or user-specified? 3. Should it be related to the IMMUTABLE/STABLE/VOLATILE designation, or completely separate? Regards, Jeff Davis