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 Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote: > > > > > > When researching and writing a top-up patch about this. > > > I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first. > > > > > > It's possible the table is published in two publications A and B, > > > publication A only publish "insert" , publication B publish "update". > > > When UPDATE, both row filter in A and B will be executed. Is this behavior > > expected? > > > > > > Good question. No. The code should check the action before combining > > > the multiple row filters. > > > > > > > Do you mean to say that we should give an error on Update/Delete if any of the > > publications contain table rowfilter that has columns that are not part of the > > primary key or replica identity? I think this is what Hou-san has implemented in > > his top-up patch and I also think this is the right behavior. > > Yes, the top-up patch will give an error if the columns in row filter are not part of > replica identity when UPDATE and DELETE. > > But the point I want to confirm is that: > > --- > create publication A for table tbl1 where (b<2) with(publish='insert'); > create publication B for table tbl1 where (a>1) with(publish='update'); > --- > > When UPDATE on the table 'tbl1', is it correct to combine and execute both of > the row filter in A(b<2) and B(a>1) ?(it's the current behavior) > > Because the filter in A has an unlogged column(b) and the publication A only > publish "insert", so for UPDATE, should we skip the row filter in A and only > execute the row filter in B ? > But since the filters are OR'ed together does it even matter? Now that your top-up patch now prevents invalid updates/deletes, this other point is only really a question about the cache performance, isn't it? ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.