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 Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:01 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Do you mean to say that we should give an error on Update/Delete if any of the > > > > publications contain table rowfilter that has columns that are not part of the > > > > primary key or replica identity? I think this is what Hou-san has implemented in > > > > his top-up patch and I also think this is the right behavior. > > > > > > Yes, the top-up patch will give an error if the columns in row filter are not part of > > > replica identity when UPDATE and DELETE. > > > > > > But the point I want to confirm is that: > > > Okay, I see your point now. > > > --- > > > create publication A for table tbl1 where (b<2) with(publish='insert'); > > > create publication B for table tbl1 where (a>1) with(publish='update'); > > > --- > > > > > > When UPDATE on the table 'tbl1', is it correct to combine and execute both of > > > the row filter in A(b<2) and B(a>1) ?(it's the current behavior) > > > > > > Because the filter in A has an unlogged column(b) and the publication A only > > > publish "insert", so for UPDATE, should we skip the row filter in A and only > > > execute the row filter in B ? > > > > > > > But since the filters are OR'ed together does it even matter? > > Even if it is OR'ed, if the value is not logged (as it was not part of replica identity or primary key) as per Hou-San's example, how will evaluate such a filter? > > Now that your top-up patch now prevents invalid updates/deletes, this > > other point is only really a question about the cache performance, > > isn't it? > > > > Irrespective of replica identity I think there is still a functional > behaviour question, right? > > e.g. > create publication p1 for table census where (country = 'Aust') with > (publish="update") > create publication p2 for table census where (country = 'NZ') with > (publish='insert') > > Should it be possible to UPDATE for country 'NZ' or not? > Is this the same as your question Hou-san? > I am not sure if it is the same because in Hou-San's example publications refer to different columns where one of the columns was part of PK and another was not whereas in your example both refer to the same column. I think in your example the error will happen at the time of update/delete whereas in Hou-San's example it won't happen at the time of update/delete. With Regards, Amit Kapila.