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
Attachments
- v66-0001-Allow-specifying-row-filter-for-logical-replication-.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v66-0001
- v66-0002-Row-filter-tab-auto-complete-and-pgdump.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v66-0002
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 7:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Some other comments:
> > ==================
> >
>
> Few more comments:
> ==================
> 1.
> +pgoutput_row_filter_init_expr(Node *rfnode) { ExprState *exprstate;
> + Expr *expr;
> +
> + /*
> + * This is the same code as ExecPrepareExpr() but that is not used
> + because
> + * we have no EState to pass it.
>
> Isn't it better to say "This is the same code as ExecPrepareExpr() but that is not
> used because we want to cache the expression"? I feel if we want we can allocate
> Estate as the patch is doing in pgoutput_row_filter(), no?
Changed as suggested.
> 2.
> + elog(DEBUG3, "row filter evaluates to %s (isnull: %s)",
> + DatumGetBool(ret) ? "true" : "false",
> + isnull ? "true" : "false");
> +
> + if (isnull)
> + return false;
>
> Won't the isnull condition's result in elog should be reversed?
Changed.
> 3.
> + /*
> + * If the publication is FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA and it overlaps
> + * with the current relation in the same schema then this is also
> + * treated same as if this table has no row filters (even if for
> + * other publications it does).
> + */
> + else if (list_member_oid(schemaPubids, pub->oid)) pub_no_filter =
> + true;
>
> The code will appear better if you can move the comments inside else if. There
> are other places nearby this comment where we can follow the same style.
Changed.
> 4.
> + * Multiple ExprState entries might be used if there are multiple
> + * publications for a single table. Different publication actions don't
> + * allow multiple expressions to always be combined into one, so there
> + is
> + * one ExprState per publication action. The exprstate array is indexed
> + by
> + * ReorderBufferChangeType.
> + */
> + bool exprstate_valid;
> +
> + /* ExprState array for row filter. One per publication action. */
> + ExprState *exprstate[NUM_ROWFILTER_PUBACTIONS];
>
> It is not clear from comments here or at other places as to why we need an array
> for row filter expressions? Can you please add comments to explain the same?
> IIRC, it is primarily due to the reason that we don't want to add the restriction
> that the publish operation 'insert'
> should also honor RI columns restriction. If there are other reasons then let's add
> those to comments as well.
I will think over this and update in next version.
Attach the V66 patch set which addressed Amit, Peter and Greg's comments.
Best regards,
Hou zj