Re: row filtering for logical replication
Ajin Cherian <itsajin@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 Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:50 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why do you think that the second assumption (if there is an old tuple > it will contain all RI key fields.) is broken? It seems to me even > when we are planning to include unchanged toast as part of old_key, it > will contain all the key columns, isn't that true? Yes, I assumed wrongly. Just checked. What you say is correct. > > > I think we > > still need to deform both old tuple and new tuple, just to handle this case. > > > > Yeah, but we will anyway talking about saving that cost for later if > we decide to send that tuple. I think we can further try to optimize > it by first checking whether the new tuple has any toasted value, if > so then only we need this extra pass of deforming. Ok, I will go ahead with this approach. > > > There is currently logic in ReorderBufferToastReplace() which already > > deforms the new tuple > > to detoast changed toasted fields in the new tuple. I think if we can > > enhance this logic for our > > purpose, then we can avoid an extra deform of the new tuple. > > But I think you had earlier indicated that having untoasted unchanged > > values in the new tuple > > can be bothersome. > > > > I think it will be too costly on the subscriber side during apply > because it will update all the unchanged toasted values which will > lead to extra writes both for WAL and data. > Ok, agreed. regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia