Horton

Re: row filtering for logical replication

Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com>, japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-11-12T10:19:34Z
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. Release cache tuple when no longer needed

  2. Add some additional tests for row filters in logical replication.

  3. Fix one of the tests introduced in commit 52e4f0cd47.

  4. Allow specifying row filters for logical replication of tables.

  5. Move scanint8() to numutils.c

  6. Replace Test::More plans with done_testing

  7. Reduce relcache access in WAL sender streaming logical changes

  8. Small cleanups related to PUBLICATION framework code

  9. Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.

  10. Allow publishing the tables of schema.

  11. Doc: improve documentation of CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.

  12. Add PublicationTable and PublicationRelInfo structs

  13. Remove unused argument "txn" in maybe_send_schema().

  14. Add prepare API support for streaming transactions in logical replication.

  15. Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods

  16. Use l*_node() family of functions where appropriate

  17. Add support for prepared transactions to built-in logical replication.

  18. Restore the portal-level snapshot after procedure COMMIT/ROLLBACK.

  19. Rename a parse node to be more general

  20. Remove unused column atttypmod from initial tablesync query

  21. SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

Attachments

Attaching version 39-

V39 fixes the following review comments:

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  CheckObjSchemaNotAlreadyInPublication(rels, schemaidlist,
>    PUBLICATIONOBJ_TABLE);
>
>I think for the correct merge you need to just call
>CheckObjSchemaNotAlreadyInPublication() before this for loop. BTW, I
>have a question regarding this implementation. Here, it has been
>assumed that the new rel will always be specified with a different
>qual, what if there is no qual or if the qual is the same?

Actually with this code, no qual or a different qual does not matter,
it recreates everything as specified by the ALTER SET command.
I have added CheckObjSchemaNotAlreadyInPublication as you specified since this
is required to match the schema patch behaviour. I've also added
a test case that tests this particular case.


On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 5:53 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>2) v37-0004
>
>+       /* Scan the expression tree for referenceable objects */
>+       find_expr_references_walker(expr, &context);
>+
>+       /* Remove any duplicates */
>+       eliminate_duplicate_dependencies(context.addrs);
>+
>
>The 0004 patch currently use find_expr_references_walker to get all the
>reference objects. I am thinking do we only need get the columns in the
>expression ? I think maybe we can check the replica indentity like[1].

Changed as suggested.


On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I see your point. But, I think we can add some comments here
>indicating that the user might have mistakenly given where clause with
>some schema which we will identify later and give an appropriate
>error. Then, in preprocess_pubobj_list(), identify if the user has
>given the where clause with schema name and give an appropriate erro

Changed as suggested.


On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, why not give an error if the duplicate table is present and any one of them or
>both have row-filters? I think the current behavior makes sense
>because it makes no difference if the table is present more than once
>in the list but with row-filter it can make difference so it seems to
>me that giving an error should be considered.

Changed as suggested, also added test cases for the same.


regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia