Re: row filtering for logical replication

Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>

From: Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.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>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-12-17T06:45:58Z
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 →
  1. Release cache tuple when no longer needed

  2. Add some additional tests for row filters in logical replication.

  3. Fix one of the tests introduced in commit 52e4f0cd47.

  4. Allow specifying row filters for logical replication of tables.

  5. Move scanint8() to numutils.c

  6. Replace Test::More plans with done_testing

  7. Reduce relcache access in WAL sender streaming logical changes

  8. Small cleanups related to PUBLICATION framework code

  9. Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.

  10. Allow publishing the tables of schema.

  11. Doc: improve documentation of CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.

  12. Add PublicationTable and PublicationRelInfo structs

  13. Remove unused argument "txn" in maybe_send_schema().

  14. Add prepare API support for streaming transactions in logical replication.

  15. Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods

  16. Use l*_node() family of functions where appropriate

  17. Add support for prepared transactions to built-in logical replication.

  18. Restore the portal-level snapshot after procedure COMMIT/ROLLBACK.

  19. Rename a parse node to be more general

  20. Remove unused column atttypmod from initial tablesync query

  21. SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PSA the v47* patch set.
>

I found that even though there are now separately-maintained WHERE clauses
per pubaction, there still seem to be problems when applying the old/new
row rules for UPDATE.
A simple example of this was previously discussed in [1].
The example is repeated below:

---- Publication
create table tbl1 (a int primary key, b int);
create publication A for table tbl1 where (b<2) with(publish='insert');
create publication B for table tbl1 where (a>1) with(publish='update');

---- Subscription
create table tbl1 (a int primary key, b int);
create subscription sub connection 'dbname=postgres host=localhost
port=10000' publication A,B;

---- Publication
insert into tbl1 values (1,1);
update tbl1 set a = 2;

So using the v47 patch-set, I still find that the UPDATE above results in
publication of an INSERT of (2,1), rather than an UPDATE of (1,1) to (2,1).
This is according to the 2nd UPDATE rule below, from patch 0003.

+ * old-row (no match)    new-row (no match)  -> (drop change)
+ * old-row (no match)    new row (match)     -> INSERT
+ * old-row (match)       new-row (no match)  -> DELETE
+ * old-row (match)       new row (match)     -> UPDATE

This is because the old row (1,1) doesn't match the UPDATE filter "(a>1)",
but the new row (2,1) does.
This functionality doesn't seem right to me. I don't think it can be
assumed that (1,1) was never published (and thus requires an INSERT rather
than UPDATE) based on these checks, because in this example, (1,1) was
previously published via a different operation - INSERT (and using a
different filter too).
I think the fundamental problem here is that these UPDATE rules assume that
the old (current) row was previously UPDATEd (and published, or not
published, according to the filter applicable to UPDATE), but this is not
necessarily the case.
Or am I missing something?

----
[1]
https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-dz0srExG0NPPgXh5X8eL2uxk7C=cZoGTbf8cNqoRUY6w@mail.gmail.com


Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia