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
Attachments
- v68_changes_amit_1.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v68
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Attach the V68 patch set which addressed the above comments and changes.
>
Few comments and suggestions:
==========================
1.
/*
+ * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
+ * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
+ */
+ tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
+ slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
+ slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
+
Isn't it better to add assert like
Assert(map_changetype_pubaction[*action] == PUBACTION_UPDATE); before
the above code? I have tried to change this part of the code in the
attached top-up patch.
2.
+ /*
+ * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
+ * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
+ */
+ tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
+ slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
+ slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
+
+ /*
+ * The new tuple might not have all the replica identity columns, in which
+ * case it needs to be copied over from the old tuple.
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < desc->natts; i++)
+ {
+ Form_pg_attribute att = TupleDescAttr(desc, i);
+
+ /*
+ * if the column in the new tuple or old tuple is null, nothing to do
+ */
+ if (tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] || old_slot->tts_isnull[i])
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Unchanged toasted replica identity columns are only detoasted in the
+ * old tuple, copy this over to the new tuple.
+ */
+ if (att->attlen == -1 &&
+ VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i]) &&
+ !VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]))
+ {
+ if (tmp_new_slot == new_slot)
+ {
+ tmp_new_slot = MakeSingleTupleTableSlot(desc, &TTSOpsVirtual);
+ ExecClearTuple(tmp_new_slot);
+ ExecCopySlot(tmp_new_slot, new_slot);
+ }
+
+ tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i] = old_slot->tts_values[i];
+ tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] = old_slot->tts_isnull[i];
+ }
+ }
What is the need to assign new_slot to tmp_new_slot at the beginning
of this part of the code? Can't we do this when we found some
attribute that needs to be copied from the old tuple?
The other part which is not clear to me by looking at this code and
comments is how do we ensure that we cover all cases where the new
tuple doesn't have values?
Attached top-up patch with some minor changes. Kindly review.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.