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>
 <CAD21AoCLvb37vW0pE2eG0=aD0ifTTX-ruBJB8QHYbcMynUQPdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+h-XHUsyMz4iqxzsPEYX7SeTAFmfWxXBYe_OFPA_Btgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAVr0k6E8vHz6AEkarN6YLsKqZMS4ciK4EWwwdTULQeeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoAVr0k6E8vHz6AEkarN6YLsKqZMS4ciK4EWwwdTULQeeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 10:58:24 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1Ltc_E_zcdB1gnxrLNZBZS_R5ZNzDP_rH0AL9Yz4Rjp4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>,
	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/CAA4eK1Ltc_E_zcdB1gnxrLNZBZS_R5ZNzDP_rH0AL9Yz4Rjp4w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 11:06=E2=80=AFPM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:04=E2=80=AFPM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:58=E2=80=AFPM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@g=
mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 2:36=E2=80=AFAM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 2:19=E2=80=AFPM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Swada-San. Here are some minor review comments for v4-0001/2 c=
ombined.
> > > > >
> > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > > > 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 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
> > > > 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 *pubn=
ames,
> > > > +                          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_re=
lid
> > > > 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.

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.