Horton

Re: row filtering for logical replication

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.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>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-09-21T10:59:58Z
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

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:16 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:41 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > I think the point is if for some expression some
> > > values are in old tuple and others are in new then the idea proposed
> > > in the patch seems sane. Moreover, I think in your idea for each tuple
> > > we might need to build a new expression and sometimes twice that will
> > > beat the purpose of cache we have kept in the patch and I am not sure
> > > if it is less costly.
> >
> > Basically, expression initialization should happen only once in most
> > cases so with my suggestion you might have to do it twice.
> >
>
> No, the situation will be that we might have to do it twice per update
> where as now, it is just done at the very first operation on a
> relation.

Yeah right.  Actually, I mean it will not get initialized for decoding
each tuple, so instead of once it will be done twice, but anyway now
we agree that we can not proceed in this direction because of the
issue you pointed out.

> >  Maybe for now this suggest that we might not
> > be able to avoid the duplicate execution of the expression
> >
>
> So, IIUC, you agreed that let's proceed with the proposed approach and
> we can later do optimizations if possible or if we get better ideas.

Make sense.

> > Okay, then we might have to deform, but at least are we ensuring that
> > once we have deform the tuple for the expression evaluation then we
> > are not doing that again while sending the tuple?
> >
>
> I think this is possible but we might want to be careful not to send
> extra unchanged values as we are doing now.

Right.

Some more comments,

In pgoutput_row_filter_update(), first, we are deforming the tuple in
local datum, then modifying the tuple, and then reforming the tuple.
I think we can surely do better here.  Currently, you are reforming
the tuple so that you can store it in the scan slot by calling
ExecStoreHeapTuple which will be used for expression evaluation.
Instead of that what you need to do is to deform the tuple using
tts_values of the scan slot and later call ExecStoreVirtualTuple(), so
advantages are 1) you don't need to reform the tuple 2) the expression
evaluation machinery doesn't need to deform again for fetching the
value of the attribute, instead it can directly get from the value
from the virtual tuple.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com