Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Date: 2022-01-12 18:57:12
Message-ID: 202201121857.3dtj6tpe2fc7@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022-Jan-11, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Is there any coordination between the "column filter" patch and the "row
> filter" patch ?

Not beyond the grammar, which I tested.

> Are they both on track for PG15 ?

I think they're both on track, yes.

> Has anybody run them together ?

Not me.

> I have a suggestion: for the functions for which both patches are adding
> additional argument types, define a filtering structure for both patches to
> use. Similar to what we did for some utility statements in a3dc92600.
> I'm referring to:
> logicalrep_write_update()
> logicalrep_write_tuple()

Fixed: the row filter patch no longer adds extra arguments to those

Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W —
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-01-12 19:24:09 Re: sepgsql logging
Previous Message David Christensen 2022-01-12 18:57:02 Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements