On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:47 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:12 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I tested the flows with
> > a) logical replication slot and get-changes.
> > b) filtered data flows: pub-sub creation with row_filters, 'publish'
> > options. I tried to verify plugin fields as compared to total_wal*
> > fields.
> > c) reset flow.
> >
> > While tests for a and c are present already. I don't see tests for b
> > anywhere when it comes to stats. Do you think we shall add a test for
> > filtered data using row-filter somewhere?
>
> Added a test in 028_row_filter. Please find it in the attached
> patchset.
Test looks good.
> I didn't find tests which test table level filtering or
> operation level filtering. Can you please point me to such tests. I
> will add similar test to other places. Once you review the test in
> 028_row_filter, I will replicate it to other places you point out.
>
I can see a few tests of operation level filtering present in
'subscription/t/001_rep_changes.pl' and
'subscription/t/010_truncate.pl'
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:38:30AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:08 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In WalSndWriteData() we can't rely on what happens in a low level API
> > > > like socket_putmessage(). And we are counting the number of bytes in
> > > > the logically decoded message. So, I actually wonder whether we should
> > > > count 1 byte of 'd' in sentBytes. Shveta, Bertand, what do you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If we are not counting all such metadata bytes ((or can't reliably do
> > > so), then IMO, we shall skip counting msgtype as well.
> >
> > Agree. Maybe mention in the doc that metadata (including msgtype) bytes are not
> > taken into account?
>
> We are counting the sentBytes in central places through which all the
> logically decoded messages flow. So we are not missing on any metadata
> bytes. Given that these bytes are part of the logically decoded
> message itself, I think we should count them in the sentBytes. Now the
> question remains is whether to count 4 bytes for length in the message
> itself? The logical decoding code can not control that and thus should
> not account for it. So I am leaving bytes counted for
> pg_hton32((uint32) (len + 4)) out of sentBytes calculation.
> --
Okay.
thanks
Shveta
