public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Paul Jungwirth <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:11:37 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CACJufxESqArbu=R8m3a+ZF-Yia26KTGpEnyqz+8d5BXb1o=c=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACJufxECGaLjMcN8TJbX1fGrMFKs6qu+6RiZm98=sLcpiVpu2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+renyUFC13F0tYKxEENZtWA0YVuS5Tv+ZQkEkAwuDO1-Xke-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

I have committed the documentation patches

v43-0001-Add-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS-and-PERIOD-to-ALTER-TABLE-r.patch
v43-0002-Update-conexclop-docs-for-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS.patch

For the logical replication fixes

v43-0003-Fix-logical-replication-for-temporal-tables.patch

can you summarize what the issues currently are?  Is it currently 
broken, or just not working as well as it could?

AFAICT, there might be two separate issues.  One is that you can't use a 
temporal index as replica identity, because ALTER TABLE rejects it.  The 
other is that a subscriber fails to make use of a replica identity 
index, because it uses the wrong strategy numbers.

This conditional is really hard to understand:

+       /*
+        * The AM must support uniqueness, and the index must in fact be 
unique.
+        * If we have a WITHOUT OVERLAPS constraint (identified by 
uniqueness +
+        * exclusion), we can use that too.
+        */
+       if ((!indexRel->rd_indam->amcanunique ||
+               !indexRel->rd_index->indisunique) &&
+               !(indexRel->rd_index->indisunique && 
indexRel->rd_index->indisexclusion))

Why can we have a indisunique index when the AM is not amcanunique?  Are 
we using the fields wrong?

-       return get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(am);
+       /* For GiST indexes we need to ask the opclass what strategy 
number to use. */
+       if (am == GIST_AM_OID)
+               return GistTranslateStratnum(opclass, 
RTEqualStrategyNumber);
+       else
+               return get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(am);

This code should probably be pushed into 
get_equal_strategy_number_for_am().  That function already has a switch 
based on index AM OIDs.  Also, there are other callers of 
get_equal_strategy_number_for_am(), which also might want to become 
aware of GiST support.

For the new test file, remember to add it to 
src/test/subscription/meson.build.

Also, maybe add a introductory comment in the test file to describe 
generally what it's trying to test.

view thread (35+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox