Subject: Re: row filtering for logical replication
To: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Suzuki Hironobu <hironobu@interdb.jp>
References: 
 <CAHE3wggb715X+mK_DitLXF25B=jE6xyNCH4YOwM860JR7HarGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHE3wgiHOdFHcEpm_w5f8vAXiugDmTciTiegNGVktezMbFkkrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsFNBFawwSABEAC45Vua8rSggpM2kkMMmoOHz51a+fi3OXFfnrStVh80pM2/J9nSzjrIKQKf
 H5PtRnoYzSKnoUDoLOkLwDYitK3HzUUWXma+AWAqef2Y0GSZ7A3jJkD+JHOfkpS1CIpkEB/e
 WjA8Wqegwzc/OEE5111/l0Q1e6jxgZI86h8MMnm35Of1Y6Lz4kqWCyxHhaTJKTCkq66ICQ2C
 VJkbvuUoEE+Hr/I38dPHTAqIlCnycVnJPLHBQ/UYGHR/USF8qI/qJJx6tJcNAEqz69QZ/VlY
 31UyJHdYe5NtBVz+rYZCOVWfpe3crbHuq9FjAPT+xcZefdxridmMKuW8eBmmXI9iZ3EG+X8J
 IsdLWL8QoqW0lnO1otYz1QDjdOvbEpq+u5/TAU8pgtaYH2J+6/GaQ6hMLyLBkaIAtnqlLCzq
 pxXcxMsFT14P5/rZA7EbBI8RS1ZIWJBlS2oO+dtVuENLJUC0SpptaRyn/uyOIopt7hSmBekL
 SzFnet7P9qofFJY+fQEz84v0G1gvwonHGHiCGgLpbMdPtnfPzda1aiTURvvOD7w/RmX1/ogk
 TqSGO4ejVNO/28QYouxmxzy8jbbIEiLCbHpLR/M/TvYHHPURxcx+MxVl3G+d/4Ihy4abxOdW
 pe9zLIcVMvqiUFQO28/79Gfhb7G4K+L21ORB82QYkzm3M7ebXQARAQABzSNQZXRyIEplbMOt
 bmVrIDxwam1vZG9zQHBqbW9kb3MubmV0PsLBgAQTAQoAKgIbAwUJBaOagAULCQgHAwUVCgkI
 CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCVrDBqwIZAQAKCRBci2l0giH4y/QJEACfiLHyvxlwMvo3Y88Qa9QI
 i7Hu3ZW+xxojojdRd7do0nBnf2a4YstD9u6ZOLJx4f5Ijb/8LxY10NgLugmfQ7sw2W8ui6wT
 NiAeNHpr4wpT3IV+V53psOMRYPdq2zNTLO4iNxqPFPgNufR/m4FqcGe0Wo7U0wd1p0MErXTg
 EXJDVmjPDkYnzE9ejSCOxF57+o3xs6+eW9Al2m3nqP8JCzpauCr0gqpQzCaw0VZ05aLL0t9E
 B0fdm90+ydVe10Wg+I348005smuSSckBCHZqUfjjWvjwE6v/6dZ3/50ycAbi6cTe7Fo4kOSO
 sXBFXkzYGWYrEFPkzK0zDH65D98gL1+l9uokCR2t/OYVwudbUCV3cS3xRd0eFgHbXuzV+aZc
 jRjqkPfpCA2loKtrX2U739mpVSHnpIfSBf48fLg7O5dVn5ZCrydGkEzgvyynPo7IikQrIA02
 91IoSp4RisKsJpaXHwHu6DH2rDCbYFumAMgXk2osLFX6VMPoSWKVRkr87A0VLafCtwaqr6Hy
 sFE6Lmu7jP4/BDr+9A2MXK+v0yYrXqqsZN6V9856ywlZrWK3MB6jc2bKpKS2YshneKxpitNV
 0ITs2Li0OlAXOEHE0eXwI93POgLoyH+8JiNbem3orw3Mnc+7XpIY86AejwUiYl8T7EO/2tIx
 HDaXLK3BPNOdH87BTQRWsMEgARAA6Z3NrDLdcFF/P3TD/F7WQtMALEEKn5TXSF/K2VHt21GD
 8tGY1DZhbxjLuQJeheY/2L4F4Y5WCkAoUdBXQs7nIauN+63EL88/qPdH6f3+/HZ+cmPG1E5o
 dBABCkC42eGcI5O8/9TAaFQcSzg86pdAE8v927tnc6aH4W4/Mj7RJNlQiZaz2ngCC9mr5uu+
 CysOTfKCS0llNUkExZOJzZsQU3zDkcg3+xmgtHkCjglJ006KuytHj55HR6TzaKaAW8coHGoS
 OI/BQ9KAzvlj+32/zS8FSISZSTY3spMpraADsYklejCeJOmqQ3nTrCtwlX3hTSggfr4eelKA
 hdZKs1rIimNBtX90jJc0u2A/GmC959aTSrCUcfaPRweKUuexg7jxuhXyg9br2GscD2G6W7EV
 c+3s4dOHgoJFVMBBIqTtZviaNJ63IsZIFTYJzGKKMHOioZ3naoBVav0w63waDzj82nPYMIPj
 TxnClKiecuBQQPzMaG0jTmK0lis6rO0nIXrCwca8e/3Xzvi7sykOdcz9t4ef8HrDCCkG0yDO
 o8qHy1e7EtmJD7kWffIXZMt4TZVxpiOqgWtv+heJAfmqzr8pkNLUubmgvNdnakXJOJT41Lui
 50C5OhpU9mfFCIDOeZXTQLsHA4KYaL8W/qcjv/YDmvpJtnK24y6tByWuTu7r/SMAEQEAAcLB
 ZQQYAQoADwUCVrDBIAIbDAUJBaOagAAKCRBci2l0giH4yyWpD/91jd4BMN2CDYqLtU7kaoAa
 aXnRVpf0z+R8rJ4LZJX1UNbHjsdClMQLfdBuZeDsdYar4iMfwScz6fiCiRwaRpr3XT6znaM0
 wba6fjzEqVSHr3WB1jrb/TMiNaNgQJaRPhI5C7VsLuPrv5/L8gFmyjl712q7F3busGFBKrjK
 qTESMu+sHNvVeC3QyBFCe2fudbAJdaaRsUoTbAZYiowVoQHOow8eBoWY+RzQoYGuw1fls5Ck
 85N73pYHXzjfk1s49sDKTYI263h9wbGGA234biHRI3NQN6sSYWRr/u5GOwTm/tzyadRj0pnZ
 S6KyLSEL4qx8jiyniD/XLoftlvR4YWQ0BXveEElx2n3TThLL1cVtOI4qE9BZKm32euBqwLta
 k9Jc659hmZB9E9aWLo8KcLjngwqSZupoHRPZ3yAlgZkpDoTIZpMCGxGEuuxgnosRbNpOJ1fE
 nNXenYYfi87tHRUCRKeHhoKkfGZEgC9zv9Y97j75npqV2tQyh4fNQT1tGdBigtvzI4nHM1/1
 PLJtJBdRHucP76vUH9RlP9EE/Sg5DFQqsfSYPqxLW9r+ZfSEeT0APdz7TQC9MzNzUhyXvA5a
 RQQCRMXKbGaYhKkYEYiYOGqtTxN+PmyvNUBmFEcagBX2TXqEkgnI6zOnN13mB4SihJ2lne2r
 9RNiPYs/hmRxYg==
Message-ID: <7106a0fc-8017-c0fe-a407-9466c9407ff8@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:03:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHE3wgiHOdFHcEpm_w5f8vAXiugDmTciTiegNGVktezMbFkkrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/11/2018 01:29, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Em qua, 28 de fev de 2018 às 20:03, Euler Taveira
> <euler@timbira.com.br> escreveu:
>> The attached patches add support for filtering rows in the publisher.
>>
> I rebased the patch. I added row filtering for initial
> synchronization, pg_dump support and psql support. 0001 removes unused
> code. 0002 reduces memory use. 0003 passes only structure member that
> is used in create_estate_for_relation. 0004 reuses a parser node for
> row filtering. 0005 is the feature. 0006 prints WHERE expression in
> psql. 0007 adds pg_dump support. 0008 is only for debug purposes (I'm
> not sure some of these messages will be part of the final patch).
> 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0008 are not mandatory for this feature.
> 
> Comments?
> 

Hi,

I think there are two main topics that still need to be discussed about
this patch.

Firstly, I am not sure if it's wise to allow UDFs in the filter clause
for the table. The reason for that is that we can't record all necessary
dependencies there because the functions are black box for parser. That
means if somebody drops object that an UDF used in replication filter
depends on, that function will start failing. But unlike for user
sessions it will start failing during decoding (well processing in
output plugin). And that's not recoverable by reading the missing
object, the only way to get out of that is either to move slot forward
which means losing part of replication stream and need for manual resync
or full rebuild of replication. Neither of which are good IMHO.

Secondly, do we want to at least notify user on filters (or maybe even
disallow them) with combination of action + column where column value
will not be logged? I mean for example we do this when processing the
filter against a row:

> +		ExecStoreHeapTuple(new_tuple ? new_tuple : old_tuple, ecxt->ecxt_scantuple, false);

But if user has expression on column which is not part of replica
identity that expression will always return NULL for DELETEs because
only replica identity is logged with actual values and everything else
in NULL in old_tuple. So if publication replicates deletes we should
check for this somehow.

Btw about code (you already fixed the wrong reloid in sync so skipping
that).

0002:
> +	for (tupn = 0; tupn < walres->ntuples; tupn++)
>  	{
> -		char	   *cstrs[MaxTupleAttributeNumber];
> +		char	**cstrs;
>  
>  		CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
>  
>  		/* Do the allocations in temporary context. */
>  		oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(rowcontext);
>  
> +		cstrs = palloc(nfields * sizeof(char *));

Not really sure that this is actually worth it given that we have to
allocate and free this in a loop now while before it was just sitting on
a stack.

0005:
> @@ -654,5 +740,10 @@ rel_sync_cache_publication_cb(Datum arg, int cacheid, uint32 hashvalue)
>  	 */
>  	hash_seq_init(&status, RelationSyncCache);
>  	while ((entry = (RelationSyncEntry *) hash_seq_search(&status)) != NULL)
> +	{
>  		entry->replicate_valid = false;
> +		if (list_length(entry->row_filter) > 0)
> +			list_free(entry->row_filter);
> +		entry->row_filter = NIL;
> +	}

Won't this leak memory? The list_free only frees the list cells, but not
the nodes you stored there before.

Also I think we should document here that the expression is run with the
session environment of the replication connection (so that it's more
obvious that things like CURRENT_USER will not return user which changed
tuple but the replication user).

It would be nice if 0006 had regression test and 0007 TAP test.

-- 
  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services