| 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 |
| Thread: | |
| 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
functions.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)
| 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 |