Re: row filtering for logical replication
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:26 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 8:40 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > I don't think it is a good idea to combine the row-filter from the > > > publication that publishes just 'insert' with the row-filter that > > > publishes 'updates'. We shouldn't apply the 'insert' filter for > > > 'update' and similarly for publication operations. We can combine the > > > filters when the published operations are the same. So, this means > > > that we might need to cache multiple row-filters but I think that is > > > better than having another restriction that publish operation 'insert' > > > should also honor RI columns restriction. > > > > > > That's exactly what I meant to say but apparently I didn't explain in details. > > > If a subscriber has multiple publications and a table is part of these > > > publications with different row filters, it should check the publication action > > > *before* including it in the row filter list. It means that an UPDATE operation > > > cannot apply a row filter that is part of a publication that has only INSERT as > > > an action. Having said that we cannot always combine multiple row filter > > > expressions into one. Instead, it should cache individual row filter expression > > > and apply the OR during the row filter execution (as I did in the initial > > > patches before this caching stuff). The other idea is to have multiple caches > > > for each action. The main disadvantage of this approach is to create 4x > > > entries. > > > > > > I'm experimenting the first approach that stores multiple row filters and its > > > publication action right now. > > > > > > > We can try that way but I think we should still be able to combine in > > many cases like where all the operations are specified for > > publications having the table or maybe pubactions are same. So, we > > should not give up on those cases. We can do this new logic only when > > we find that pubactions are different and probably store them as > > independent expressions and corresponding pubactions for it at the > > current location in the v42* patch (in pgoutput_row_filter). It is > > okay to combine them at a later stage during execution when we can't > > do it at the time of forming cache entry. > > What about the initial table sync? during that, we are going to > combine all the filters or we are going to apply only the insert > filters? > AFAIK, currently, initial table sync doesn't respect publication actions so it should combine all the filters. What do you think? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.