Message-ID: <563aa06b-0def-eaea-08ee-f629512ba2b8@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:37:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
 Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>
References: <202201120041.p24wvsfcsope@alvherre.pgsql>
 <78b8d385-57cb-9a3f-cfe5-9f300f15eced@enterprisedb.com>
 <822a8e40-287c-59ff-0ea9-35eb759f4fe6@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1J9UDnM-xN7viu4eO_DDL_PqMG9F6ZsskqEU7snujXi+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b8471f9-3849-c91f-ef82-9181d4bca0a7@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1KUpOnFam+2bBuGGX-_pZbmO_ShJV6G=GT-RyM7gQSvWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <16e83ce3-8415-b732-37b2-c3329a2c13a1@enterprisedb.com>
 <OS0PR01MB57164514E1DE1E579B0B6C46940F9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1KvFAygPbFu=cUvnqhmTLPpjzqp8p4UNSsLkiZmvFp8oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc6918cc-2025-6c91-2ca4-c237af67e97d@enterprisedb.com>
 <f217341d-6841-390d-3dd2-89f9d1de17fe@enterprisedb.com>
 <f90d2b03-4462-ce95-a524-d91464e797c8@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1LpBFU49Ohbnk=dv_v9YP+Kqh1+Sf8i++_s-QhD1Gy4Qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3162f7f0-86ac-e3a9-dc55-0a660cb9bab1@enterprisedb.com>
 <f987cbd5-89b1-9afb-4c6d-824eae0eec40@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1KBHES_oY5AzGD7YDboKvK9qV_C9xm9y0fs=erO24sxAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1KBHES_oY5AzGD7YDboKvK9qV_C9xm9y0fs=erO24sxAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/563aa06b-0def-eaea-08ee-f629512ba2b8%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 3/21/22 12:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:56 AM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> However, while looking at how pgoutput, I realized one thing - for row
>> filters we track them "per operation", depending on which operations are
>> defined for a given publication. Shouldn't we do the same thing for
>> column lists, really?
>>
>> I mean, if there are two publications with different column lists, one
>> for inserts and the other one for updates, isn't it wrong to merge these
>> two column lists?
>>
> 
> The reason we can't combine row filters for inserts with
> updates/deletes is that if inserts have some column that is not
> present in RI then during update filtering (for old tuple) it will
> give an error as the column won't be present in WAL log.
> 
> OTOH, the same problem won't be there for the column list/filter patch
> because all the RI columns are there in the column list (for
> update/delete) and we don't need to apply a column filter for old
> tuples in either update or delete.
> 
> Basically, the filter rules are slightly different for row filters and
> column lists, so we need them (combine of filters) for one but not for
> the other. Now, for the sake of consistency with row filters, we can
> do it but as such there won't be any problem or maybe we can just add
> a comment for the same in code.
> 

OK, thanks for the explanation. I'll add a comment explaining this to
the function initializing the column filter.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company