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 Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 6:28 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021, at 6:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > 1. if you use REPLICA IDENTITY FULL, then the expressions would work > even if they use any other column with DELETE. Maybe it would be > reasonable to test for this in the code and raise an error if the > expression requires a column that's not part of the replica identity. > (But that could be relaxed if the publication does not publish > updates/deletes.) > +1. > I thought about it but came to the conclusion that it doesn't worth it. Even > with REPLICA IDENTITY FULL expression evaluates to false if the column allows > NULL values. Besides that REPLICA IDENTITY is changed via another DDL (ALTER > TABLE) and you have to make sure you don't allow changing REPLICA IDENTITY > because some row filter uses the column you want to remove from it. > Yeah, that is required but is it not feasible to do so? > 2. For UPDATE, does the expression apply to the old tuple or to the new > tuple? You say it's the new tuple, but from the user point of view I > think it would make more sense that it would apply to the old tuple. > (Of course, if you're thinking that the R.I. is the PK and the PK is > never changed, then you don't really care which one it is, but I bet > that some people would not like that assumption.) > > New tuple. The main reason is that new tuple is always there for UPDATEs. > I am not sure if that is a very good reason to use a new tuple. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.