Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 15:57:12 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
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: <202201121857.3dtj6tpe2fc7@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220111211053.GB14051@telsasoft.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202201121857.3dtj6tpe2fc7%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Jan-11, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Is there any coordination between the "column filter" patch and the "row
> filter" patch ?

Not beyond the grammar, which I tested.

> Are they both on track for PG15 ?

I think they're both on track, yes.

> Has anybody run them together ?

Not me.

> 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()

Fixed: the row filter patch no longer adds extra arguments to those
functions.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera           39°49'30"S 73°17'W  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)