From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci(at)gmail(dot)com>, japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Date: | 2021-11-29 12:20:34 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vkDeP7+fhDcyPK7E_Hd+8SupkHrZc=Aq=xYSzhwAKGkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think it is a good idea to combine the row-filter from the
> > > publication that publishes just 'insert' with the row-filter that
> > > publishes 'updates'. We shouldn't apply the 'insert' filter for
> > > 'update' and similarly for publication operations. We can combine the
> > > filters when the published operations are the same. So, this means
> > > that we might need to cache multiple row-filters but I think that is
> > > better than having another restriction that publish operation 'insert'
> > > should also honor RI columns restriction.
> >
> > I am just wondering that if we don't combine filter in the above case
> > then what data we will send to the subscriber if the operation is
> > "UPDATE tbl1 SET a = 2, b=3", so in this case, we will apply only the
> > update filter i.e. a > 1 so as per that this will become the INSERT
> > operation because the old row was not passing the filter.
> >
>
> If we want, I think for inserts (new row) we can consider the insert
> filter as well but that makes it tricky to explain. I feel we can
> change it later as well if there is a valid use case for this. What do
> you think?
Yeah, that makes sense.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-29 12:20:43 | Re: pg_upgrade and publication/subscription problem |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-29 12:10:06 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |