Horton

Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-01-31T03:32:54Z
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. WAL log unchanged toasted replica identity key attributes.

  2. Add new wal_level, logical, sufficient for logical decoding.

  3. Add the notion of REPLICA IDENTITY for a table.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 3:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:16 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> + /*
> + * If it's a whole-tuple reference, say "not equal".  It's not really
> + * worth supporting this case, since it could only succeed after a
> + * no-op update, which is hardly a case worth optimizing for.
> + */
> + if (attrnum == 0)
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * Likewise, automatically say "not equal" for any system attribute
> + * other than tableOID; we cannot expect these to be consistent in a
> + * HOT chain, or even to be set correctly yet in the new tuple.
> + */
> + if (attrnum < 0)
> + {
> + if (attrnum != TableOidAttributeNumber)
> + continue;
> + }
>
> These two cases need to be considered as the corresponding attribute
> is modified, so the attnum needs to be added in the bitmapset of
> modified attrs.

Yeah right.

>
> I have changed this and various other comments in the patch. I have
> modified the docs as well to reflect the changes. I thought of adding
> a test but I think the current test in toast.sql seems sufficient.
> Kindly let me know what you think of the attached? I think we should
> backpatch this till v10. What do you think?

Looks fine to me.

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