Re: row filtering for logical replication

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>

Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, 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: 2021-07-14T14:48:34Z

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 →

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, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:04 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>

> Perhaps the best way forward is to stick to the approach that INSERT
> uses new, DELETE uses old and UPDATE works as DELETE+INSERT (probably),
> and leave anything fancier (like being able to reference both versions
> of the row) for a future patch.

If UPDATE works as DELETE+ INSERT, does that mean both the OLD row and
the NEW row should satisfy the filter, then only it will be sent?
That means if we insert a row that is not satisfying the condition
(which is not sent to the subscriber) and later if we update that row
and change the values such that the modified value matches the filter
then we will not send it because only the NEW row is satisfying the
condition but OLD row doesn't.  I am just trying to understand your
idea.  Or you are saying that in this case, we will not send anything
for the OLD row as it was not satisfying the condition but the
modified row will be sent as an INSERT operation because this is
satisfying the condition?

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