Re: row filtering for logical replication

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Suzuki Hironobu <hironobu(at)interdb(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: row filtering for logical replication
Date: 2018-11-23 16:39:14
Message-ID: 20181123163913.GK958@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:03:27AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 01/11/2018 01:29, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > Em qua, 28 de fev de 2018 às 20:03, Euler Taveira
> > <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> escreveu:
> >> The attached patches add support for filtering rows in the publisher.
> >>
> > I rebased the patch. I added row filtering for initial
> > synchronization, pg_dump support and psql support. 0001 removes unused
> > code. 0002 reduces memory use. 0003 passes only structure member that
> > is used in create_estate_for_relation. 0004 reuses a parser node for
> > row filtering. 0005 is the feature. 0006 prints WHERE expression in
> > psql. 0007 adds pg_dump support. 0008 is only for debug purposes (I'm
> > not sure some of these messages will be part of the final patch).
> > 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0008 are not mandatory for this feature.
>
> Hi,
>
> I think there are two main topics that still need to be discussed about
> this patch.
>
> Firstly, I am not sure if it's wise to allow UDFs in the filter clause
> for the table. The reason for that is that we can't record all necessary
> dependencies there because the functions are black box for parser.

Some UDFs are not a black box for the parser, namely ones written in
SQL. Would it make sense at least not to foreclose the non-(black box)
option?

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-11-23 17:17:34 Re: BUG #15160: planner overestimates number of rows in join when there are more than 200 rows coming from CTE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-11-23 16:25:12 Re: Inadequate executor locking of indexes