Re: SQL:2011 application time
Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Rename gist stratnum support function
- 32edf732e8dc 18.0 landed
-
Remove support for temporal RESTRICT foreign keys
- b83e8a2ca2eb 18.0 landed
-
Cache NO ACTION foreign keys separately from RESTRICT foreign keys
- 9926f854d077 18.0 landed
-
Fix NO ACTION temporal foreign keys when the referenced endpoints change
- 1772d554b089 18.0 landed
-
Improve whitespace in without_overlaps test
- 888d4523f0c2 18.0 landed
-
Tests for logical replication with temporal keys
- 939b0908c87a 18.0 landed
-
Support for GiST in get_equal_strategy_number()
- 74edabce7a33 18.0 landed
-
Make the conditions in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() more explicit
- 13544e790ef8 18.0 landed
-
Replace get_equal_strategy_number_for_am() by get_equal_strategy_number()
- a2a475b011cf 18.0 landed
-
Improve internal logical replication error for missing equality strategy
- 321c287351f7 18.0 landed
-
Simplify IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull()
- 7727049e8f66 18.0 landed
-
Fix ALTER TABLE / REPLICA IDENTITY for temporal tables
- 79b575d3bc09 18.0 landed
-
doc: Update pg_constraint.conexclop docs for WITHOUT OVERLAPS
- f683ba0867da 18.0 landed
-
doc: Add PERIOD to ALTER TABLE reference docs
- d56af4c882e2 18.0 landed
-
doc: Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS to ALTER TABLE reference docs
- bf621059500b 18.0 landed
-
Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints
- 89f908a6d0ac 18.0 landed
- 34768ee36165 17.0 landed
-
Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints
- fc0438b4e805 18.0 landed
- 46a0cd4cefb4 17.0 landed
-
Add stratnum GiST support function
- 7406ab623fee 18.0 landed
- 6db4598fcb82 17.0 landed
-
Avoid crashing when a JIT-inlined backend function throws an error.
- 5d6c64d29097 17.0 cited
-
Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys
- 8aee330af55d 17.0 landed
-
Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes
- 144c2ce0cc75 17.0 landed
-
Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key
- 482e108cd38d 17.0 landed
-
Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests
- 5577a71fb0cc 17.0 landed
-
Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.
- a88c800deb6f 17.0 landed
-
Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod
- 030e10ff1a36 17.0 landed
-
Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree
- 86232a49a437 17.0 landed
-
Add missing TAP test name
- 1ab763fc22ad 16.0 cited
-
Improve error handling of HMAC computations
- 5513dc6a304d 15.0 cited
-
Rename functions to avoid future conflicts
- ee419607381d 15.0 landed
On 11/13/24 02:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have committed the documentation patches
>
> v43-0001-Add-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS-and-PERIOD-to-ALTER-TABLE-r.patch
> v43-0002-Update-conexclop-docs-for-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS.patch
Thanks!
> For the logical replication fixes
>
> v43-0003-Fix-logical-replication-for-temporal-tables.patch
>
> can you summarize what the issues currently are? Is it currently broken, or just not working as
> well as it could?
>
> AFAICT, there might be two separate issues. One is that you can't use a temporal index as replica
> identity, because ALTER TABLE rejects it. The other is that a subscriber fails to make use of a
> replica identity index, because it uses the wrong strategy numbers.
Correct, there are two issues this commit fixes:
On the publisher side: You can use REPLICA IDENTITY DEFAULT with a temporal PK/UNIQUE index. There
is no validation step, and sending the changes works fine. But REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX fails
because the validation step rejects the non-btree index.
Then on the subscriber side, we are not applying changes correctly, because we assume the strategy
numbers are btree numbers.
> This conditional is really hard to understand:
>
> + /*
> + * The AM must support uniqueness, and the index must in fact be unique.
> + * If we have a WITHOUT OVERLAPS constraint (identified by uniqueness +
> + * exclusion), we can use that too.
> + */
> + if ((!indexRel->rd_indam->amcanunique ||
> + !indexRel->rd_index->indisunique) &&
> + !(indexRel->rd_index->indisunique && indexRel->rd_index->indisexclusion))
>
> Why can we have a indisunique index when the AM is not amcanunique? Are we using the fields wrong?
>
> - return get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(am);
> + /* For GiST indexes we need to ask the opclass what strategy number to use. */
> + if (am == GIST_AM_OID)
> + return GistTranslateStratnum(opclass, RTEqualStrategyNumber);
> + else
> + return get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(am);
>
> This code should probably be pushed into get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(). That function already
> has a switch based on index AM OIDs. Also, there are other callers of
> get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(), which also might want to become aware of GiST support.
>
> For the new test file, remember to add it to src/test/subscription/meson.build.
>
> Also, maybe add a introductory comment in the test file to describe generally what it's trying to test.
Okay, I'll make these changes and re-send the patch.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com