public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 10:58:24 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1Ltc_E_zcdB1gnxrLNZBZS_R5ZNzDP_rH0AL9Yz4Rjp4w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoAVr0k6E8vHz6AEkarN6YLsKqZMS4ciK4EWwwdTULQeeg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<[email protected]>
<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>
<CAD21AoCLvb37vW0pE2eG0=aD0ifTTX-ruBJB8QHYbcMynUQPdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+h-XHUsyMz4iqxzsPEYX7SeTAFmfWxXBYe_OFPA_Btgg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoAVr0k6E8vHz6AEkarN6YLsKqZMS4ciK4EWwwdTULQeeg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 11:06 PM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:04 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 2:36 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 2:19 PM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Swada-San. Here are some minor review comments for v4-0001/2 combined.
> > > > >
> > > > > ======
> > > > > src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c
> > > > >
> > > > > is_table_publishable_in_publication:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > This function logic has a format like
> > > > >
> > > > > if (cond)
> > > > > {
> > > > > ...
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > if (cond2)
> > > > > {
> > > > > ...
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many return points, and most of those "if" blocks cannot
> > > > > fall through (they return).
> > > > >
> > > > > I found it slightly difficult to read the code because I kept having
> > > > > to think, "OK, if we reached here, it means pubviaroot must be false,"
> > > > > 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
> > > > function. So, I share your concerns about the code of this function.
> > > > Because of its complexity it is difficult to ascertain that the
> > > > functionality is correct or we missed something. Also, considering it
> > > > is correct today, in its current form, it may become difficult to
> > > > enhance it in future.
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll refactor that function.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One more comment on latest patch:
> > > > *
> > > > +static Datum
> > > > +pg_get_publication_tables(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, ArrayType *pubnames,
> > > > + Oid target_relid, bool filter_by_relid,
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need filter_by_relid as a separate parameter? Isn't the
> > > > valid value of target_relid the same? If so, can't we use target_relid
> > > > for the required checks?
> > >
> > > If we don't have filter_by_relid, we would end up not filtering
> > > anything if users pass 0 (InvalidOid) as the target_relid to the new
> > > pg_get_publication_tables(). This is the same as the behavior of the
> > > existing pg_get_publication_tables(),
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that what we want when a user passes InvalidOid? What is the
> > expected behavior in that case?
> >
>
> While it could be contrivarsial what we expect when "users wants to
> filter the result by InvalidOid", I think the new
> pg_get_publication_tables() should not return anything in this case
> rather than return all table information. I think this behavior is
> consistent with the case where users pass non-table OID to the
> function. I don't want to make passing InvalidOid a special case in
> the new function.
>
Fair enough. I am fine with this definition.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
view thread (51+ 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], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1Ltc_E_zcdB1gnxrLNZBZS_R5ZNzDP_rH0AL9Yz4Rjp4w@mail.gmail.com>
* 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