Re: row filtering for logical replication
Peter Smith <smithpb2250@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 Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 1:10 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > BTW I think it's not great to commit with the presented split. We would > have non-trivial short-lived changes for no good reason (0002 in > particular). I think this whole series should be a single patch, with Yes, we know that eventually these parts will be combined and committed as a single patch. What you see not is still a work-in-progress. The current separation has been mostly for helping multiple people collaborate without too much clashing. e.g., the 0002 patch has been kept separate just to help do performance testing of that part in isolation. > the commit message being a fusion of messages explaining in full what > the functional change is, listing all the authors together. Having a > commit message like in 0001 where all the distinct changes are explained > in separate sections with each section listing its own author, does not > sound very useful or helpful. > Yes, the current v58-0001 commit message is just a combination of previous historical patch comments as each of them got merged back into the main patch. This message format was just a quick/easy way to ensure that no information was accidentally lost along the way. We understand that prior to the final commit this will all need to be fused together just like you are suggesting. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia