| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation |
| Date: | 2026-04-08 04:53:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+Pv+a-7-NRrZv4v6RfaaUo5b21RXe0tGOu8CfKrxPjE=tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 1:45 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 12:32, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, after confirming my understanding of pg_publication_rel [1], I
> > revisited some logical replication internal functions.
> >
> > Specifically.
> > * The `is_table_publication` function is for checking if the
> > publication has a clause like "FOR TABLE t1".
> > * The `is_schema_publication` function is for checking if the
> > publication has a clause like "FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA s1".
> >
> > Notice that neither of these ("FOR TABLE", "FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA")
> > clauses are possible simultaneously with "FOR ALL TABLES".
> >
> > And we can readily discover if "FOR ALL TABLES" (aka `puballtables`)
> > is present from the pubform.
> >
> > We can use this to optimise and simplify the implementations of the
> > `is_schema_publication` and `is_table_publication` functions.
> >
> > PSA patch v1.
> >
> > AFAICT, the result is:
> > - less code + simpler logic. e.g. is_table_publication does not check
> > 'prexcept' anymore
> > - more efficient. e.g. skips unnecessary scanning when puballtables is true.
> > - more consistent. e.g., both functions are now almost identical.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
Hi Vignesh. Thanks for reviewing!
> I'm not sure if this additional check is sufficient in case of
> is_schema_publication. Checking only puballtables can exclude FOR ALL
> TABLES, but it still cannot distinguish regular table publications,
> empty publications, or sequence publications. In all of those cases,
> we still need to check pg_publication_namespace.
Yes, this condition is only an optimisation for FOR ALL TABLES, as the
comment says.
IMO, the overhead of 1 additional boolean check for cases where it
doesn't help is an insignificant trade-off for the savings when it can
return false.
> And also why just check for puballtables why not to check for puballsequences
I think function is_schema_publication() is unrelated to 'puballsequences'.
e.g. all the following will still need to check
pg_publication_namespace, regardless of the 'puballsequences' value.
ex1. CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR ALL SEQUENCES;
ex2. CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR ALL SEQUENCES, FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA s1;
ex3. CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA s1;
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Austalia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-04-08 04:59:03 | Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-04-08 04:28:18 | Re: doc: Improve wal_level and effective_wal_level GUC around logical replication |