MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAB-JLwbBFNuASyEnZWP0Tck9uNkthBZqi6WoXNevUT6+mV8XmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoA6i2ui8FMZeuU_KxX4t-fM8G==zTW2Dp6-goujttrpew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-JLwZpp=7c9_r0beWWJxRh2BS_2Vvth8UDv7H57DBeaqggVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDT3sL2COprsRumM9zEpL1Bk5VWboK4V2mRnjGua8xfeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDQM62GOtaTzD_CVMSsFhv6o9c0Au1dSM1QuxeKFkWAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoCz7HjEr3oeb=haK31YHxHZLcvD_wx_a-+xLPKywq++3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB16907733B75A99117F013AFCA947FA@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAD21AoA9YgiY1rVKMPZwB00WU_G4UfzoawY=7hyd7hpvBPcK6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KoSi60dtakJzn0MxNnHF1Yf4indSAffTjJxQG_31jsgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoB4B3MOxJ7-v9YLjV5fTOtaLRUhX3jN3kqhEi7D7-uY4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0c28fbd1-3320-4e9b-815c-6d62753aa063@wi3ck.info>
 <CAD21AoCmHpKrNg9D3mcOA973CZ5N_dBLxb8pERpSxEeRLSQxpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAEVyxwn_bMWHvcU-Gcz3aUVjAtMbdgfoJ8MZNiLLEh0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1Jkouj=w+PHzMB6v890ES3QOLf=cUTvZmGFr-WMQW2OnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoB4_n7+s=uM9apX1JVtvGvgM8ismAx_uMxvDmUXfQULsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBJcxRcaWQot302diaxoDcsnezRhnZa7p8UrPh5AGNeHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PuSkabUB8H_hcwQz=BX5TWEj-8Ba+CP_PX78zN1fkhtKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1K+rumWz=mHDLVVCig-i_cWWSzwDE1eMySq0WYc7_ve+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB169070A34D1C74867EF5A2DE49453A@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAD21AoBB3ovY4Hpr+HM6VkCY+sj3_71ZRi3oOP67w5ivvy4zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoCNvrrkqZFRofPdyW7sd0CoRsnZZc4RusFbLrZax0ELzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoCNvrrkqZFRofPdyW7sd0CoRsnZZc4RusFbLrZax0ELzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 11:15:21 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1LYF4h+ehT9GvCV62U+Cr_uAKYRgy+3TcUXS7-DLxkq=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LYF4h%2BehT9GvCV62U%2BCr_uAKYRgy%2B3TcUXS7-DLxkq%3DA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 3:53=E2=80=AFAM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:40=E2=80=AFPM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 5:07=E2=80=AFAM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 2:19=E2=80=AFPM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gm=
ail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many return points, and most of those "if" blocks canno=
t
> > > > > fall through (they return).
> > > > >
> > > > > I found it slightly difficult to read the code because I kept hav=
ing
> > > > > to think, "OK, if we reached here, it means pubviaroot must be fa=
lse,"
> > > > > or "OK, if we reached this far, then puballtables must be false, =
and
> > > > > pubviaroot must be false," etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can't say exactly why, but I find it difficult to read this funct=
ion. So, I share
> > > > your concerns about the code of this function.
> > > > Because of its complexity it is difficult to ascertain that the fun=
ctionality is
> > > > correct or we missed something. Also, considering it is correct tod=
ay, in its
> > > > current form, it may become difficult to enhance it in future.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I attempted to refactor the code a bit based on my preferred style, a=
s shown in
> > > the attachment. While the number of return points couldn't be reduced=
, I tried
> > > to eliminate if-else branches where possible. Sharing this top-up pat=
ch as a
> > > reference for an alternative style that reduces code size.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. It looks like a good refactoring! I'd prefer to free the
> > ancestors list to avoid memory leak.
> >
> > I've attached the patch that incorporated all comments I got so far.
> > Feedback is very welcome.
> >
>
> I decided to simplify the code flow in the
> is_table_publishable_in_publication() by taking more proposed changes
> from Hou-san while accepting some memory leak. This function is
> limited to be used only in per-call-memory context so we don't need to
> worry about the actual memory leak. While we would need to change this
> function in the futuer when we want to use it other places too, I
> think it would be better to keep the function simple until then. I
> hope the added new comment also help understand the code flow of this
> function.
>

Yes, the function looks better and helps to understand the flow.
Thanks for improving it.

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.