Re: row filtering for logical replication

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:49 AM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)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 agree that would be better than coming up with an entirely new
approach especially when the current approach is discussed and agreed
upon.

> 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.

+1.

> 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?
>

I think eventually we should merge 0001 and 0003 to avoid any sort of
data consistency but it is better to keep them separate for the
purpose of a review at this stage. If I am not wrong that still needs
bug-fix we are discussing it as part of CF entry [1], right? If so,
isn't it better to review that bug-fix patch and the 0003 patch being
discussed here [2] to avoid missing any already reported issues in
this thread?

[1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/36/3162/
[2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPtJnnM8MYQDf7xCyFAp13U_0Ya2dv-UQeFD%3DghixFLZiw%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.