Re: tablesync copy ignores publication actions

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:07 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Thank you for your review comments. Those reported mistakes are fixed
> in the attached patch v3.
>

This patch looks mostly good to me except for a few minor comments
which are mentioned below. It is not very clear in which branch(es) we
should commit this patch? As per my understanding, this is a
pre-existing behavior but we want to document it because (a) It was
not already documented, and (b) we followed it for row filters in
PG-15 it seems that should be explained. So, we have the following
options (a) commit it only for PG-15, (b) commit for PG-15 and
backpatch the relevant sections, or (c) commit it when branch opens
for PG-16. What do you or others think?

Few comments:
==============
1.
>
- particular event types. By default, all operation types are replicated.
- (Row filters have no effect for <command>TRUNCATE</command>. See
- <xref linkend="logical-replication-row-filter"/>).
+ particular event types. By default, all operation types are replicated.
+ These are DML operation limitations only; they do not affect the initial
+ data synchronization copy.
>

Using limitations in the above sentence can be misleading. Can we
change it to something like: "These publication specifications apply
only for DML operations; they do ... ".

2.
+ operations. The publication <literal>pub3b</literal> has a row filter.

In the Examples section, you have used row filter whereas that section
is later in the docs. So, it is better if you give reference to that
section in the above sentence (see Section ...).

3.
+ <para>
+ This parameter only affects DML operations. In particular, the
+ subscription initial data synchronization does not take
this parameter
+ into account when copying existing table data.
+ </para>

In the second sentence: "... subscription initial data synchronization
..." doesn't sound appropriate. Can we change it to something like:
"In particular, the initial data synchronization (see Section ..) in
logical replication does not take this parameter into account when
copying existing table data."?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.