Re: row filtering for logical replication
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@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 Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:26 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 8:40 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > I don't think it is a good idea to combine the row-filter from the > > publication that publishes just 'insert' with the row-filter that > > publishes 'updates'. We shouldn't apply the 'insert' filter for > > 'update' and similarly for publication operations. We can combine the > > filters when the published operations are the same. So, this means > > that we might need to cache multiple row-filters but I think that is > > better than having another restriction that publish operation 'insert' > > should also honor RI columns restriction. > > > > That's exactly what I meant to say but apparently I didn't explain in details. > > If a subscriber has multiple publications and a table is part of these > > publications with different row filters, it should check the publication action > > *before* including it in the row filter list. It means that an UPDATE operation > > cannot apply a row filter that is part of a publication that has only INSERT as > > an action. Having said that we cannot always combine multiple row filter > > expressions into one. Instead, it should cache individual row filter expression > > and apply the OR during the row filter execution (as I did in the initial > > patches before this caching stuff). The other idea is to have multiple caches > > for each action. The main disadvantage of this approach is to create 4x > > entries. > > > > I'm experimenting the first approach that stores multiple row filters and its > > publication action right now. > > > > We can try that way but I think we should still be able to combine in > many cases like where all the operations are specified for > publications having the table or maybe pubactions are same. So, we > should not give up on those cases. We can do this new logic only when > we find that pubactions are different and probably store them as > independent expressions and corresponding pubactions for it at the > current location in the v42* patch (in pgoutput_row_filter). It is > okay to combine them at a later stage during execution when we can't > do it at the time of forming cache entry. What about the initial table sync? during that, we are going to combine all the filters or we are going to apply only the insert filters? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com