Re: row filtering for logical replication

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com>, japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2021-11-04T05:19:07Z

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 →

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, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:17 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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).
> >
>
> I don't have a good reason to prefer one over another but I think if
> we do this then we should document the chosen behavior. BTW, why not
> give an error if the duplicate table is present and any one of them or
> both have row-filters? I think the current behavior makes sense
> because it makes no difference if the table is present more than once
> in the list but with row-filter it can make difference so it seems to
> me that giving an error should be considered.

Yes,  giving an error if any duplicate table has a filter is also a
good alternative solution.

I only wanted to demonstrate the current problem, and get some
consensus on the solution before implementing a fix. If others are
happy to give an error for this case then that is fine by me too.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.