| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci(at)gmail(dot)com>, japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Date: | 2022-01-07 06:35:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+H8oGrzy7FeOr0ttAqh6r8iKEV7G1QVzOTDLC+60MnRQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:44 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:42 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > IMO we shouldn't reuse ReorderBufferChangeType. For a long-term solution, it is
> > fragile. ReorderBufferChangeType has values that do not matter for row filter
> > and it relies on the fact that REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INSERT,
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE and REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_DELETE are the first 3
> > values from the enum, otherwise, it breaks rfnodes and no_filters in
> > pgoutput_row_filter().
> >
>
> I think you mean to say it will break in pgoutput_row_filter_init(). I
> see your point but OTOH, if we do what you are suggesting then don't
> we need an additional mapping between ReorderBufferChangeType and
> RowFilterPublishAction as row filter and pgoutput_change API need to
> use those values.
>
Can't we use 0,1,2 as indexes for rfnodes/no_filters based on change
type as they are local variables as that will avoid the fragileness
you are worried about. I am slightly hesitant to introduce new enum
when we are already using reorder buffer change type in pgoutput.c.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-01-07 06:43:06 | Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2022-01-07 06:26:31 | Re: Index-only scan for btree_gist turns bpchar to char |