From: | Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
Date: | 2024-12-04 16:16:27 |
Message-ID: | 14333fff-e9cf-460d-bdbf-3f71ff6098d4@illuminatedcomputing.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/4/24 03:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I did some more work on this approach, with the attached patches resulting. This is essentially
> what I'm describing above, which in turn is a variation of your patch v45-0001-Fix-logical-
> replication-for-temporal-tables.patch, with your tests added at the end.
>
> I also did some more work on IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() to make the various claims in the
> comments reflected by actual code. With all of this, it can now also use gist indexes on the
> subscriber side in cases of REPLICA IDENTITY FULL. This isn't immediately visible in the tests, but
> you can see that the tests are using it internally by adding debugging elogs or something like that.
>
> Altogether, I think this fixes the original problem of temporal keys not being handled properly in
> logical replication subscribers, and it makes things less hardcoded around btree and hash in general.
>
> Please review.
Thanks! Between U.S. Thanksgiving and the flu I haven't had a chance to look at your previous
patches, but I should have an evening or two this week to review what you've got here. I appreciate
your keeping the ball moving! I also have some notes about the Index AMI work I will write up on
that thread.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Jones | 2024-12-04 16:18:54 | XMLDocument (SQL/XML X030) |
Previous Message | Eric Hanson | 2024-12-04 16:13:34 | Re: Proposal: Role Sandboxing for Secure Impersonation |