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 Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> 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. > > > > I am just wondering that if we don't combine filter in the above case > > then what data we will send to the subscriber if the operation is > > "UPDATE tbl1 SET a = 2, b=3", so in this case, we will apply only the > > update filter i.e. a > 1 so as per that this will become the INSERT > > operation because the old row was not passing the filter. > > > > If we want, I think for inserts (new row) we can consider the insert > filter as well but that makes it tricky to explain. I feel we can > change it later as well if there is a valid use case for this. What do > you think? Yeah, that makes sense. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com