RE: Support logical replication of DDLs

From: "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Runqi Tian <runqidev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, li jie <ggysxcq(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: Support logical replication of DDLs
Date: 2023-06-01 07:39:51
Message-ID: OSZPR01MB6310E0509F229AF2A9414BB1FD499@OSZPR01MB6310.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 31, 2023 5:41 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:45 AM Yu Shi (Fujitsu) <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 0008 patch
> > -----
> > 4.
> > case AT_AddColumn:
> > /* XXX need to set the "recurse" bit somewhere? */
> > Assert(IsA(subcmd->def, ColumnDef));
> > - tree = deparse_ColumnDef(rel, dpcontext, false,
> > - (ColumnDef *) subcmd->def, true,
> &expr);
> >
> > mark_function_volatile(context, expr);
> >
> > After this change, `expr` is not assigned a value when mark_function_volatile is
> called.
> >
>
> Corrected.
>

It looks the call to mark_function_volatile() is removed in this case. I think
we still need it, otherwise we won't know if the command contains a volatile
function. (see check_command_publishable().)

> > 5.
> > create table p1(f1 int);
> > create table p1_c1() inherits(p1);
> > alter table p1 add constraint inh_check_constraint1 check (f1 > 0);
> > alter table p1_c1 add constraint inh_check_constraint1 check (f1 > 0);
> >
> > The re-formed command of the last command is "ALTER TABLE public.p1_c1",
> which
> > seems to be wrong.
> >
>
> Fixed, second alter-table should actually be no-op in terms of
> deparsing. But when it is run without running the first alter-table
> command, it should generate the reformed command.
>

If the second alter-table is no-op in terms of deparsing, the dumped result of
origin command and that of re-formed command will be different. This seems to be
because `conislocal` column of pg_constraint has different values. (After the
second alter-table, its value is changed from false to true.)

Regards,
Shi Yu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Vanns 2023-06-01 10:14:17 Dynamic creation of list partitions in highly concurrent write environment
Previous Message Lian Jiang 2023-06-01 05:51:19 Re: speed up full table scan using psql

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message zang ruochen 2023-06-01 07:53:45 [PATCH] Add LoongArch spinlock support in s_lock.h.
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2023-06-01 07:14:08 Re: Do we want a hashset type?