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 Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:49 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > > PS> I will update the commit message in the next version. I barely changed the > > documentation to reflect the current behavior. I probably missed some changes > > but I will fix in the next version. > > > > I realized that I forgot to mention a few things about the UPDATE behavior. > > Regardless of 0003, we need to define which tuple will be used to evaluate the > > row filter for UPDATEs. We already discussed it circa [1]. This current version > > chooses *new* tuple. Is it the best choice? > > But with 0003, we are using both the tuple for evaluating the row > filter, so instead of fixing 0001, why we don't just merge 0003 with > 0001? > I agree that would be better than coming up with an entirely new approach especially when the current approach is discussed and agreed upon. > I mean eventually, 0003 is doing what is the agreed behavior, > i.e. if just OLD is matching the filter then convert the UPDATE to > DELETE OTOH if only new is matching the filter then convert the UPDATE > to INSERT. +1. > Do you think that even we merge 0001 and 0003 then also > there is an open issue regarding which row to select for the filter? > I think eventually we should merge 0001 and 0003 to avoid any sort of data consistency but it is better to keep them separate for the purpose of a review at this stage. If I am not wrong that still needs bug-fix we are discussing it as part of CF entry [1], right? If so, isn't it better to review that bug-fix patch and the 0003 patch being discussed here [2] to avoid missing any already reported issues in this thread? [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/36/3162/ [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPtJnnM8MYQDf7xCyFAp13U_0Ya2dv-UQeFD%3DghixFLZiw%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.