RE: row filtering for logical replication
Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.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 Thur, Jan 20, 2022 7:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:42 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attach the V68 patch set which addressed the above comments and changes.
> >
>
> Few comments and suggestions:
> ==========================
> 1.
> /*
> + * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
> + * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
> + */
> + tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
> + slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
> + slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
> +
>
> Isn't it better to add assert like
> Assert(map_changetype_pubaction[*action] == PUBACTION_UPDATE); before
> the above code? I have tried to change this part of the code in the
> attached top-up patch.
>
> 2.
> + /*
> + * For updates, if both the new tuple and old tuple are not null, then both
> + * of them need to be checked against the row filter.
> + */
> + tmp_new_slot = new_slot;
> + slot_getallattrs(new_slot);
> + slot_getallattrs(old_slot);
> +
> + /*
> + * The new tuple might not have all the replica identity columns, in which
> + * case it needs to be copied over from the old tuple.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < desc->natts; i++)
> + {
> + Form_pg_attribute att = TupleDescAttr(desc, i);
> +
> + /*
> + * if the column in the new tuple or old tuple is null, nothing to do
> + */
> + if (tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] || old_slot->tts_isnull[i])
> + continue;
> +
> + /*
> + * Unchanged toasted replica identity columns are only detoasted in the
> + * old tuple, copy this over to the new tuple.
> + */
> + if (att->attlen == -1 &&
> + VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i]) &&
> + !VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]))
> + {
> + if (tmp_new_slot == new_slot)
> + {
> + tmp_new_slot = MakeSingleTupleTableSlot(desc, &TTSOpsVirtual);
> + ExecClearTuple(tmp_new_slot);
> + ExecCopySlot(tmp_new_slot, new_slot);
> + }
> +
> + tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i] = old_slot->tts_values[i];
> + tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i] = old_slot->tts_isnull[i];
> + }
> + }
>
>
> What is the need to assign new_slot to tmp_new_slot at the beginning
> of this part of the code? Can't we do this when we found some
> attribute that needs to be copied from the old tuple?
Thanks for the comments, Changed.
> The other part which is not clear to me by looking at this code and
> comments is how do we ensure that we cover all cases where the new
> tuple doesn't have values?
I will do some research about this and respond soon.
Best regards,
Hou zj