| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Simplify some codes in pgoutput |
| Date: | 2023-03-16 04:30:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jq6Rs2e9nszDr6r2c8=6LygNNwETYX2OQkDc324qfGjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 2:00 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that there are some duplicated codes in pgoutput_change() function
> which can be simplified, and here is an attempt to do that.
>
For REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_DELETE, when the old tuple is missing, after
this patch, we will still send BEGIN and do OutputPluginWrite, etc.
Also, it will try to perform row_filter when none of old_slot or
new_slot is set. I don't know for which particular case we have s
handling missing old tuples for deletes but that might require changes
in your proposed patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-03-16 04:50:15 | Re: zstd compression for pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2023-03-16 04:18:07 | Re: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |