Message-ID: <ec95d68e-495e-9e49-e34b-6a3d7f2e2abc@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:11:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Content-Language: en-US
To: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
 Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com>
References: <202201120041.p24wvsfcsope@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAA4eK1KONbrck=hQTFSFgwio5rqu-82KZba2HLE_AcVa_RWYcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <cac80284-7196-6c77-adb9-ef0976a3e21f@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1JyoVty_BZOMJdx7VMkBTadvv8oOYrh9xTQ5BY+k-3+OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d26d24dd-2fab-3c48-0162-2b7f84a9c893@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1JJ5qgqbjfYQU9F4R1+OABxec-DQechQXus0fanDjaAVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OS0PR01MB571614E4A39DD33669D5AFD6940A9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <e4b0fb99-3d74-7333-1e71-74f990b641ee@enterprisedb.com>
 <78b8d385-57cb-9a3f-cfe5-9f300f15eced@enterprisedb.com>
 <822a8e40-287c-59ff-0ea9-35eb759f4fe6@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1J9UDnM-xN7viu4eO_DDL_PqMG9F6ZsskqEU7snujXi+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b8471f9-3849-c91f-ef82-9181d4bca0a7@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1KUpOnFam+2bBuGGX-_pZbmO_ShJV6G=GT-RyM7gQSvWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <16e83ce3-8415-b732-37b2-c3329a2c13a1@enterprisedb.com>
 <OS0PR01MB57164514E1DE1E579B0B6C46940F9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB57164514E1DE1E579B0B6C46940F9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ec95d68e-495e-9e49-e34b-6a3d7f2e2abc%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/22 05:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Okay, please find attached. I have done basic testing of this, if we
>>> agree with this approach then this will require some more testing.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, the proposed changes seem like a clear improvement, so I've
>> added them, with some minor tweaks (mostly to comments).
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for updating the patches !
> And sorry for the row filter bug caused by my mistake.
> 
> I looked at the two fixup patches. I am thinking would it be better if we
> add one testcase for these two bugs? Maybe like the attachment.
> 

Yeah, a test would be nice - I'll take a look later.

Anyway, the fix does not address tablesync, as explained in [1]. I'm not
sure what to do about it - in principle, we could calculate which
relations to sync, and then eliminate "duplicates" (i.e. relations where
we are going to sync an ancestor).


regards

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/822a8e40-287c-59ff-0ea9-35eb759f4fe6%40enterprisedb.com


-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company