public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Paul Jungwirth <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 09:25:15 -0800
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]>
<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]>
<[email protected]>
On 11/13/24 02:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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
Thanks!
> 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.
Correct, there are two issues this commit fixes:
On the publisher side: You can use REPLICA IDENTITY DEFAULT with a temporal PK/UNIQUE index. There
is no validation step, and sending the changes works fine. But REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX fails
because the validation step rejects the non-btree index.
Then on the subscriber side, we are not applying changes correctly, because we assume the strategy
numbers are btree 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.
Okay, I'll make these changes and re-send the patch.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
[email protected]
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