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, Jan 14, 2022 at 5:48 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 5:49 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 4. src/backend/replication/pgoutput/pgoutput.c - pgoutput_row_filter comments
> >
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Change is checked against the row filter, if any.
> > + *
> > + * If it returns true, the change is replicated, otherwise, it is not.
> > + *
> > + * FOR INSERT: evaluates the row filter for new tuple.
> > + * FOR DELETE: evaluates the row filter for old tuple.
> > + * For UPDATE: evaluates the row filter for old and new tuple. If both
> > + * evaluations are true, it sends the UPDATE. If both evaluations are false, it
> > + * doesn't send the UPDATE. If only one of the tuples matches the row filter
> > + * expression, there is a data consistency issue. Fixing this issue requires a
> > + * transformation.
> > + *
> > + * Transformations:
> > + * Updates are transformed to inserts and deletes based on the
> > + * old tuple and new tuple. The new action is updated in the
> > + * action parameter. If not updated, action remains as update.
> > + *
> > + * Case 1: old-row (no match) new-row (no match) -> (drop change)
> > + * Case 2: old-row (no match) new row (match) -> INSERT
> > + * Case 3: old-row (match) new-row (no match) -> DELETE
> > + * Case 4: old-row (match) new row (match) -> UPDATE
> > + *
> > + * If the change is to be replicated this function returns true, else false.
> > + *
> > + * Examples:
> >
> > The function header comment says the same thing 2x about the return values.
> >
> > The 1st text "If it returns true, the change is replicated, otherwise,
> > it is not." should be replaced by the better wording of the 2nd text
> > ("If the change is to be replicated this function returns true, else
> > false."). Then, that 2nd text can be removed (from where it is later
> > in this same comment).
>
> Hi Hou-san, thanks for all the v64 updates!
>
> I think the above comment was only partly fixed.
>
> The v64-0001 comment still says:
> + * If it returns true, the change is replicated, otherwise, it is not.
>
...
...
>
> But maybe it is best to rearrange the whole thing like:
> "Returns true if the change is to be replicated, else false."
>
+1 to change as per this suggestion.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.