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, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:27 PM Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 8:36 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 8:29 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 5:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:43 PM Tomas Vondra >> > > > > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Do we log the TOAST-ed values that were not updated? >> > > > > >> > > > > No, we don't, I have submitted a patch sometime back to fix that [1] >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > That patch seems to log WAL for key unchanged columns. What about if >> > > > unchanged non-key columns? Do they get logged as part of the new tuple >> > > > or is there some other way we can get those? If not, then we need to >> > > > probably think of restricting filter clause in some way. >> > > >> > > But what sort of restrictions? I mean we can not put based on data >> > > type right that will be too restrictive, >> > > >> > >> > Yeah, data type restriction sounds too restrictive and unless the data >> > is toasted, the data will be anyway available. I think such kind of >> > restriction should be the last resort but let's try to see if we can >> > do something better. >> > >> > > other option is only to allow >> > > replica identity keys columns in the filter condition? >> > > >> > >> > Yes, that is what I had in mind because if key column(s) is changed >> > then we will have data for both old and new tuples. But if it is not >> > changed then we will have it probably for the old tuple unless we >> > decide to fix the bug you mentioned in a different way in which case >> > we might either need to log it for the purpose of this feature (but >> > that will be any way for HEAD) or need to come up with some other >> > solution here. I think we can't even fetch such columns data during >> > decoding because we have catalog-only historic snapshots here. Do you >> > have any better ideas? >> > >> >> BTW, I wonder how pglogical can handle this because if these unchanged >> toasted values are not logged in WAL for the new tuple then how the >> comparison for such columns will work? Either they are forcing WAL in >> some way or don't allow WHERE clause on such columns or maybe they >> have dealt with it in some other way unless they are unaware of this >> problem. >> > > The column comparison for row filtering happens before the unchanged toast > columns are filtered. Unchanged toast columns are filtered just before writing the tuple > to output stream. > To perform filtering, you need to use the tuple from WAL and that tuple doesn't seem to have unchanged toast values, so how can we do filtering? I think it is a good idea to test this once. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.