Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:24:19 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Message-ID: <202109242224.tfcvtyvdeafb@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b26e44cd-67b6-24d0-f0c3-f24793dbf7af@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109242224.tfcvtyvdeafb%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Sep-24, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> But that's not the column filtering patch, right? Why would this patch
> depend on "schema level support", but maybe the consensus is there's some
> common part that we need to get in first?

Yes, the grammar needs to be common.  I posted a proposed grammar in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109241325.eag5g6mpvoup%40alvherre.pgsql
(this thread) which should serve both.  I forgot to test the addition of
a WHERE clause for row filtering, though, and I didn't think to look at
adding SEQUENCE support either.

(I'm not sure what's going to be the proposal regarding FOR ALL TABLES
IN SCHEMA for sequences.  Are we going to have "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN
SCHEMA" and "FOR ALL TABLES AND SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Thou shalt study thy libraries and strive not to reinvent them without
cause, that thy code may be short and readable and thy days pleasant
and productive. (7th Commandment for C Programmers)