Horton

Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-02-08T09:51:19Z
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 →

  1. WAL log unchanged toasted replica identity key attributes.

  2. Add new wal_level, logical, sufficient for logical decoding.

  3. Add the notion of REPLICA IDENTITY for a table.

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:48 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-07 08:44:00 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Right, and it is getting changed. We are just printing the first 200
> > characters (by using SQL [1]) from the decoded tuple so what is shown
> > in the results is the initial 200 bytes.
>
> Ah, I knew I must have been missing something.
>
>
> > The complete decoded data after the patch is as follows:
>
> Hm. I think we should change the way the strings are shortened - otherwise we
> don't really verify much in that test. Perhaps we could just replace the long
> repetitive strings with something shorter in the output?
>
> E.g. using something like regexp_replace(data, '(1234567890|9876543210){200}', '\1{200}','g')
> inside the substr().
>

This sounds like a good idea. Shall we do this as part of this patch
itself or as a separate improvement?

> Wonder if we should deduplicate the number of different toasted strings in the
> file to something that'd allow us to have a single "redact_toast" function or
> such. There's too many different ones to have a reasonbly simple redaction
> function right now.
>

I think this is also worth trying.

> But that's perhaps better done separately.
>

+1.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.