Re: doc: improve the restriction description of using indexes on REPLICA IDENTITY FULL table.
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-07-21T01:25:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v4-0001-Remove-unnecessary-checks-for-indexes-for-REPLICA.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v4-0001
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 5:09 PM Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Masahiko, Amit, all > >> I've updated the patch. > > > I think the flow is much nicer now compared to the HEAD. I really don't have any > comments regarding the accuracy of the code changes, all looks good to me. > Overall, I cannot see any behavioral changes as you already alluded to. Thank you for reviewing the patch. > > Maybe few minor notes regarding the comments: > >> /* >> + * And must reference the remote relation column. This is because if it >> + * doesn't, the sequential scan is favorable over index scan in most >> + * cases.. >> + */ > > > I think the reader might have lost the context (or say in the future due to > another refactor etc). So maybe start with: > >> /* And the leftmost index field must refer to the ... Fixed. > > > Also, now in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() some of the conditions have comments > some don't. Should we comment on the missing ones as well, maybe such as: > >> /* partial indexes are not support * >> if (indexInfo->ii_Predicate != NIL) > > and, >> >> /* all indexes must have at least one attribute */ >> Assert(indexInfo->ii_NumIndexAttrs >= 1); Agreed. But I don't think the latter comment is necessary as it's obvious. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> BTW, IsIndexOnlyExpression() is not necessary but the current code >>> still works fine. So do we need to backpatch it to PG16? I'm thinking >>> we can apply it to only HEAD. >> >> Either way is fine but I think if we backpatch it then the code >> remains consistent and the backpatching would be easier. > > > Yeah, I also have a slight preference for backporting. It could make it easier to maintain the code > in the future in case of another backport(s). With the cost of making it slightly harder for you now :) Agreed. I've attached the updated patch. I'll push it early next week, barring any objections. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
Remove unnecessary checks for indexes for REPLICA IDENTITY FULL tables.
- d0ce9d0bc7f6 17.0 landed
- 35c85c3c9b90 16.0 landed
-
Allow the use of a hash index on the subscriber during replication.
- edca3424342d 17.0 cited
-
Doc: clarify the conditions of usable indexes for REPLICA IDENTITY FULL tables.
- 4946910a875c 16.0 landed
- fd48a86c6241 17.0 landed
-
Allow the use of indexes other than PK and REPLICA IDENTITY on the subscriber.
- 89e46da5e511 16.0 cited