RE: Support logical replication of DDLs

From: "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>, li jie <ggysxcq(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Support logical replication of DDLs
Date: 2023-03-09 09:58:52
Message-ID: OS0PR01MB57166D4E3E8FC3B5DF6A6ABB94B59@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thur, Mar 9, 2023 10:27 AM Wang, Wei/王 威 <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 18:17 PM Wang, Wei/王 威 <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 14:34 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Changes are in patch 1 and patch 2
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch set.
> >
> > Here are some comments:
>
> Here are some more comments for v-75-0002* patch:

Thanks for your comments.

> 1. In the function deparse_AlterRelation
> + if ((sub->address.objectId != relId &&
> + sub->address.objectId != InvalidOid) &&
> + !(subcmd->subtype == AT_AddConstraint &&
> + subcmd->recurse) &&
> + istable)
> + continue;
> I think when we execute the command "ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON"
> (subtype is AT_ClusterOn), this command will be skipped for parsing. I
> think we need to parse this command here.
>
> I think we are skipping some needed parsing due to this check, such as
> [1].#1 and the AT_ClusterOn command mentioned above. After reading the
> thread, I think the purpose of this check is to fix the bug in [2]
> (see the last point in [2]).
> I think maybe we could modify this check to `continue` when
> sub->address.objectId and relId are inconsistent and
> sub->sub->address.objectId is a
> child (inherited or partition) table. What do you think?

Fixed as suggested.

> ~~~
>
> 2. In the function deparse_CreateStmt
> I think when we execute the following command:
> `CREATE TABLE tbl (a int GENERATED ALWAYS AS (1) STORED);` the
> deparsed result is :
> `CREATE TABLE public.tbl (a pg_catalog.int4 STORAGE plain
> GENERATED ALWAYS AS 1 STORED);` I think the parentheses around
> generation_expr(I mean `1`) are missing, which would cause a syntax
> error.

Fixed.

> ~~~
>
> 3. In the function deparse_IndexStmt
> I think we missed parsing of options [NULLS NOT DISTINCT] in the
> following
> command:
> ```
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ... ON table_name ... NULLS NOT DISTINCT; ``` I
> think we could check this option via node->nulls_not_distinct.

Fixed.

Best Regards,
Hou zj

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Moench-Tegeder 2023-03-09 11:35:11 Re: public schema grants to PUBLIC role
Previous Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-03-09 09:58:49 RE: Support logical replication of DDLs

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-03-09 10:01:57 Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count
Previous Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-03-09 09:58:49 RE: Support logical replication of DDLs