Re: row filtering for logical replication
Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.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 Mon, Dec 6, 2021, at 3:35 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:49 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > > PS> I will update the commit message in the next version. I barely changed the > > documentation to reflect the current behavior. I probably missed some changes > > but I will fix in the next version. > > > > I realized that I forgot to mention a few things about the UPDATE behavior. > > Regardless of 0003, we need to define which tuple will be used to evaluate the > > row filter for UPDATEs. We already discussed it circa [1]. This current version > > chooses *new* tuple. Is it the best choice? > > But with 0003, we are using both the tuple for evaluating the row > filter, so instead of fixing 0001, why we don't just merge 0003 with > 0001? I mean eventually, 0003 is doing what is the agreed behavior, > i.e. if just OLD is matching the filter then convert the UPDATE to > DELETE OTOH if only new is matching the filter then convert the UPDATE > to INSERT. Do you think that even we merge 0001 and 0003 then also > there is an open issue regarding which row to select for the filter? Maybe I was not clear. IIUC we are still discussing 0003 and I would like to propose a different default based on the conclusion I came up. If we merged 0003, that's fine; this change will be useless. If we don't or it is optional, it still has its merit. Do we want to pay the overhead to evaluating both tuple for UPDATEs? I'm still processing if it is worth it. If you think that in general the row filter contains the primary key and it is rare to change it, it will waste cycles evaluating the same expression twice. It seems this behavior could be controlled by a parameter. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/