Re: row filtering for logical replication
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.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 7/14/21 4:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Jul-14, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> The way I'm thinking about this is that for INSERT and DELETE it's clear >> which row version should be used (because there's just one). And for UPDATE >> we could see that as DELETE + INSERT, and apply the same rule to each >> action. >> >> On the other hand, I can imagine cases where it'd be useful to send the >> UPDATE when the old row matches the condition and new row does not. > > In any case, it seems to me that the condition expression should be > scanned to see which columns are used in Vars (pull_varattnos?), and > verify if those columns are in the REPLICA IDENTITY; and if they are > not, raise an error. Most of the time the REPLICA IDENTITY is going to > be the primary key; but if the user wants to use other columns in the > expression, we can HINT that they can set REPLICA IDENTITY FULL. > Yeah, but AFAIK that's needed only when replicating DELETEs, so perhaps we could ignore this for subscriptions without DELETE. The other question is when to check/enforce this. I guess we'll have to do that during decoding, not just when the publication is being created, because the user can do ALTER TABLE later. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company