Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:47 -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: <202109242300.luehabughrjv@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <992e75b9-d70f-9172-1fa8-088dbf1e4232@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109242300.luehabughrjv%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Sep-25, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> On 9/25/21 12:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Fine with me, but I still don't know which version of the column filtering
> patch should I look at ... maybe there's none up to date, at the moment?

I don't think there is one.  I think the latest is what I posted in
https://postgr.es/m/202109061751.3qz5xpugwx6w@alvherre.pgsql (At least I
don't see any reply from Rahila with attachments after that), but that
wasn't addressing a bunch of review comments that had been made; and I
suspect that Amit K has already committed a few conflicting patches
after that.

> > (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"?)
> 
> Should be "FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN SCHEMA" of course ;-)

hahah ...

> On a more serious note, a comma-separated list of objects seems like the
> best / most flexible choice, i.e. "FOR TABLES, SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?

Hmm, not sure if bison is going to like that.  Maybe it's OK if
SEQUENCES is a fully reserved word?  But nothing beats experimentation!

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for
surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)