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

From Greg Nancarrow
Subject Re: row filtering for logical replication
Date
Msg-id CAJcOf-csuCABU5tHHBaS3+e0gu+vQRrfXQF6Kc=-8g7P3UGuGg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Today, while studying the behavior of this particular operation in
> other databases, I found that IBM's InfoSphere Data Replication does
> exactly this. See [1]. I think there is a merit if want to follow this
> idea.
>

So in this model (after initial sync of rows according to the filter),
for UPDATE, the OLD row is checked against the WHERE clause, to know
if the row had been previously published. If it hadn't, and the NEW
row satisfies the WHERE clause, then it needs to be published as an
INSERT. If it had been previously published, but the NEW row doesn't
satisfy the WHERE condition, then it needs to be published as a
DELETE. Otherwise, if both OLD and NEW rows satisfy the WHERE clause,
it needs to be published as an UPDATE.
At least, that seems to be the model when the WHERE clause refers to
the NEW (updated) values, as used in most of their samples (i.e. in
that database "the current log record", indicated by a ":" prefix on
the column name).
I think that allowing the OLD values ("old log record") to be
referenced in the WHERE clause, as that model does, could be
potentially confusing.

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid stack frame setup in performance critical routines using tail calls