Re: row filtering for logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: row filtering for logical replication
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-t37Uo1NP9PR68n619S3Qkbareahu_h3h+Kp=7cKzs85w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:58 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/14/21 7:39 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 6:28 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.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?

I think for insert we are only allowing those rows to replicate which
are matching filter conditions, so if we updating any row then also we
should maintain that sanity right? That means at least on the NEW rows
we should apply the filter, IMHO.  Said that, now if there is any row
inserted which were satisfying the filter and replicated, if we update
it with the new value which is not satisfying the filter then it will
not be replicated,  I think that makes sense because if an insert is
not sending any row to a replica which is not satisfying the filter
then why update has to do that, right?

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Added schema level support for publication.
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD