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
Hi.
During some ad-hoc filter testing I observed a quirk when there are
duplicate tables. I think we need to define/implement some proper
rules for this behaviour.
=====
BACKGROUND
When the same table appears multiple times in a CREATE PUBLICATION
then those duplicates are simply ignored. The end result is that the
table is only one time in the publication.
This is fine and makes no difference where there are no row-filters
(because the duplicates are all exactly the same as each other), but
if there *are* row-filters there there is a quirky behaviour.
=====
PROBLEM
Apparently it is the *first* of the occurrences that is used and all
the other duplicates are ignored.
In practice it looks like this.
ex.1)
DROP PUBLICATION
test_pub=# CREATE PUBLICATION p1 FOR TABLE t1 WHERE (a=1), t1 WHERE (a=2);
CREATE PUBLICATION
test_pub=# \dRp+ p1
Publication p1
Owner | All tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes | Truncates | Via root
----------+------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+----------
postgres | f | t | t | t | t | f
Tables:
"public.t1" WHERE ((a = 1))
** Notice that the 2nd filter (a=2) was ignored
~
IMO ex1 is wrong behaviour. I think that any subsequent duplicate
table names should behave the same as if the CREATE was a combination
of CREATE PUBLICATION then ALTER PUBLICATION SET.
Like this:
ex.2)
test_pub=# CREATE PUBLICATION p1 FOR TABLE t1 WHERE (a=1);
CREATE PUBLICATION
test_pub=# ALTER PUBLICATION p1 SET TABLE t1 WHERE (a=2);
ALTER PUBLICATION
test_pub=# \dRp+ p1
Publication p1
Owner | All tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes | Truncates | Via root
----------+------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+----------
postgres | f | t | t | t | t | f
Tables:
"public.t1" WHERE ((a = 2))
** Notice that the 2nd filter (a=2) overwrites the 1st filter (a=1) as expected.
~~
The current behaviour of duplicates becomes even more "unexpected" if
duplicate tables occur in a single ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET command.
ex.3)
test_pub=# CREATE PUBLICATION p1;
CREATE PUBLICATION
test_pub=# ALTER PUBLICATION p1 SET TABLE t1 WHERE (a=1), t1 WHERE (a=2);
ALTER PUBLICATION
test_pub=# \dRp+ p1
Publication p1
Owner | All tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes | Truncates | Via root
----------+------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+----------
postgres | f | t | t | t | t | f
Tables:
"public.t1" WHERE ((a = 1))
** Notice the 2nd filter (a=2) did not overwrite the 1st filter (a=1).
I think a user would be quite surprised by this behaviour.
=====
PROPOSAL
I propose that we change the way duplicate tables are processed to
make it so that it is always the *last* one that takes effect (instead
of the *first* one). AFAIK doing this won't affect any current PG
behaviour, but doing this will let the new row-filter feature work in
a consistent/predictable/sane way.
Thoughts?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia