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, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:52 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 5:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "If a subscriber is a pre-15 version, the initial table > > > synchronization won't use row filters even if they are defined in the > > > publisher." > > > > > > Won't this lead to data inconsistencies or errors that otherwise > > > wouldn't happen? > > > > > > > How? The subscribers will get all the initial data. > > > > But couldn't getting all the initial data (i.e. not filtering) break > the rules used by the old/new row processing (see v46-0003 patch)? > Those rules effectively assume rows have been previously published > with filtering. > So, for example, for the following case for UPDATE: > old-row (no match) new row (match) -> INSERT > the old-row check (no match) infers that the old row was never > published, but that row could in fact have been in the initial > unfiltered rows, so in that case an INSERT gets erroneously published > instead of an UPDATE, doesn't it? > But this can happen even when both the publisher and subscriber are from v15, say if the user defines filter at some later point or change the filter conditions by Alter Publication. So, not sure if we need to invent something new for this. > > > Should such subscriptions be allowed? > > > > > > > I am not sure what you have in mind here? How can we change the > > already released code pre-15 for this new feature? > > > > I was thinking such subscription requests could be rejected by the > server, based on the subscriber version and whether the publications > use filtering etc. > Normally, the client sends some parameters to the server like (streaming, two_pc, etc.) based on which server can take such decisions. We may need to include some such thing which I am not sure is required for this particular case especially because that can happen otherwise as well. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.