Re: row filtering for logical replication

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com>, japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2021-07-20T10:02:53Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: 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, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:19 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why? I think it would just need similar restrictions as we are
> > > > planning for Delete operation such that filter columns must be either
> > > > present in primary or replica identity columns.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How else would you turn UPDATE to INSERT? For UPDATE we only send the
> > > identity columns and modified columns, and the decision happens on the
> > > subscriber.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, we log the entire new tuple and replica identity columns for the
> > old tuple in WAL for Update. And, we are going to use a new tuple for
> > Insert, so we have everything we need.
> >
>
> But for making that decision we need to apply the filter on the old
> rows as well right.  So if we want to apply the filter on the old rows
> then either the filter should only be on the replica identity key or
> we need to use REPLICA IDENTITY FULL.  I think that is what Tomas
> wants to point out.
>

I have already mentioned that for Updates the filter needs criteria
similar to Deletes. This is exactly the requirement for Delete as
well.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.