From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(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: | 2022-01-06 22:23:53 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+Ps5HDuM-SMD71Xrz0A_NYAK=-sKOGRSq3gBy1dUJ++ETw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:15 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 12:39 AM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > 3) v55-0002
> > > > +static bool pgoutput_row_filter_update_check(enum
> > > > ReorderBufferChangeType changetype, Relation relation,
> > > > +
> > > > HeapTuple oldtuple, HeapTuple newtuple,
> > > > +
> > > > RelationSyncEntry *entry, ReorderBufferChangeType *action);
> > > >
> > > > Do we need parameter changetype here? I think it could only be
> > > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE.
> > >
> > > I didn't change this, I think it might be better to wait for Ajin's opinion.
> >
> > I agree with Tang. AFAIK there is no problem removing that redundant
> > param as suggested. BTW - the Assert within that function is also
> > incorrect because the only possible value is
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE. I will make these fixes in a future
> > version.
> >
>
> That sounds fine to me too. One more thing is that you don't need to
> modify the action in case it remains update as the caller has already
> set that value. Currently, we are modifying it as update at two places
> in this function, we can remove both of those and keep the comments
> intact for the later update.
>
Fixed in v59* [1]
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-01-06 22:30:13 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-01-06 22:18:14 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |