From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(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: | 2021-07-14 10:28:16 |
Message-ID: | d3592bf3-fb31-fd0e-592c-abfd3ae9d259@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/14/21 7:39 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 6:28 AM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021, at 6:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> 1. if you use REPLICA IDENTITY FULL, then the expressions would work
>> even if they use any other column with DELETE. Maybe it would be
>> reasonable to test for this in the code and raise an error if the
>> expression requires a column that's not part of the replica identity.
>> (But that could be relaxed if the publication does not publish
>> updates/deletes.)
>>
>
> +1.
>
>> I thought about it but came to the conclusion that it doesn't worth it. Even
>> with REPLICA IDENTITY FULL expression evaluates to false if the column allows
>> NULL values. Besides that REPLICA IDENTITY is changed via another DDL (ALTER
>> TABLE) and you have to make sure you don't allow changing REPLICA IDENTITY
>> because some row filter uses the column you want to remove from it.
>>
>
> Yeah, that is required but is it not feasible to do so?
>
>> 2. For UPDATE, does the expression apply to the old tuple or to the new
>> tuple? You say it's the new tuple, but from the user point of view I
>> think it would make more sense that it would apply to the old tuple.
>> (Of course, if you're thinking that the R.I. is the PK and the PK is
>> never changed, then you don't really care which one it is, but I bet
>> that some people would not like that assumption.)
>>
>> New tuple. The main reason is that new tuple is always there for UPDATEs.
>>
>
> I am not sure if that is a very good reason to use a new tuple.
>
True. Perhaps we should look at other places with similar concept of
WHERE conditions and old/new rows, and try to be consistent with those?
I can think of:
1) updatable views with CHECK option
2) row-level security
3) triggers
Is there some reasonable rule which of the old/new tuples (or both) to
use for the WHERE condition? Or maybe it'd be handy to allow referencing
OLD/NEW as in triggers?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2021-07-14 10:33:59 | Re: Extending amcheck to check toast size and compression |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-07-14 10:16:47 | Re: Added schema level support for publication. |