On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:42 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:43 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > > Another minor comment:
> > > +static bool pgoutput_row_filter(enum ReorderBufferChangeType changetype,
> > >
> > > Do we need to specify the 'enum' type before changetype parameter?
> > >
> >
> > That is because there is currently no typedef for the enum
> > ReorderBufferChangeType.
> >
>
> But I see that the 0002 patch is already adding the required typedef.
>
> IMO we shouldn't reuse ReorderBufferChangeType. For a long-term solution, it is
> fragile. ReorderBufferChangeType has values that do not matter for row filter
> and it relies on the fact that REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INSERT,
> REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE and REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_DELETE are the first 3
> values from the enum, otherwise, it breaks rfnodes and no_filters in
> pgoutput_row_filter().
>
I think you mean to say it will break in pgoutput_row_filter_init(). I
see your point but OTOH, if we do what you are suggesting then don't
we need an additional mapping between ReorderBufferChangeType and
RowFilterPublishAction as row filter and pgoutput_change API need to
use those values.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
