Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:10:53 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com,
	Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Message-ID: <20220111211053.GB14051@telsasoft.com>
References: <2d6c8b74-bdef-767b-bdb6-29705985ed9c@enterprisedb.com>
 <202201110028.wicsx7ex2o6a@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202201110028.wicsx7ex2o6a@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220111211053.GB14051%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

Is there any coordination between the "column filter" patch and the "row
filter" patch ?  Are they both on track for PG15 ?  Has anybody run them
together ?

Whichever patch is merged 2nd should include tests involving a subset of
columns along with a WHERE clause.

I have a suggestion: for the functions for which both patches are adding
additional argument types, define a filtering structure for both patches to
use.  Similar to what we did for some utility statements in a3dc92600.

I'm referring to:
logicalrep_write_update()
logicalrep_write_tuple()

That would avoid avoid some rebase conflicts on april 9, and avoid functions
with 7,8,9 arguments, and maybe simplify adding arguments in the future.

-- 
Justin