RE: row filtering for logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Subject | RE: row filtering for logical replication |
Date | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB5716B899A66D2997EF28A1B3945F9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: row filtering for logical replication (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: row filtering for logical replication
Re: row filtering for logical replication Re: row filtering for logical replication |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, January 24, 2022 4:38 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> > > Thanks for all the patches! > > Here are my review comments for v69-0001 Thanks for the comments! > ~~~ > > 1. src/backend/executor/execReplication.c CheckCmdReplicaIdentity call to > RelationBuildPublicationDesc > > + /* > + * It is only safe to execute UPDATE/DELETE when all columns, > + referenced in > + * the row filters from publications which the relation is in, are > + valid - > + * i.e. when all referenced columns are part of REPLICA IDENTITY or the > + * table does not publish UPDATES or DELETES. > + */ > + pubdesc = RelationBuildPublicationDesc(rel); > > This code is leaky because never frees the palloc-ed memory for the pubdesc. > > IMO change the RelationBuildPublicationDesc to pass in the > PublicationDesc* from the call stack then can eliminate the palloc and risk of > leaks. > > ~~~ > > 2. src/include/utils/relcache.h - RelationBuildPublicationDesc > > +struct PublicationDesc; > +extern struct PublicationDesc *RelationBuildPublicationDesc(Relation > +relation); > > (Same as the previous comment #1). Suggest to change the function signature > to be void and pass the PublicationDesc* from stack instead of palloc-ing it > within the function I agree with these changes and Greg has posted a separate patch[1] to change these. I think it might be better to change these after that separate patch get committed because some discussions are still going on in that thread. [1] https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-d0%3DvQx1Pzbf%2BLVarywejJFS5W%2BM6uR%2B2d0oeEJ2VQ%2BEw%40mail.gmail.com > > 3. src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c - RelationBuildPublicationDesc > > +RelationBuildPublicationDesc(Relation relation) > { > List *puboids; > ListCell *lc; > MemoryContext oldcxt; > Oid schemaid; > - PublicationActions *pubactions = palloc0(sizeof(PublicationActions)); > + List *ancestors = NIL; > + Oid relid = RelationGetRelid(relation); AttrNumber invalid_rfcolnum = > + InvalidAttrNumber; PublicationDesc *pubdesc = > + palloc0(sizeof(PublicationDesc)); PublicationActions *pubactions = > + &pubdesc->pubactions; > + > + pubdesc->rf_valid_for_update = true; > + pubdesc->rf_valid_for_delete = true; > > IMO it wold be better to change the "sense" of those variables. > e.g. > > "rf_valid_for_update" --> "rf_invalid_for_update" > "rf_valid_for_delete" --> "rf_invalid_for_delete" > > That way they have the same 'sense' as the AttrNumbers so it all reads better to > me. > > Also, it means no special assignment is needed because the palloc0 will set > them correctly Since Alvaro also had some comments about the cached things and the discussion is still going on, I will note down this comment and change it later. > 4. src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c - RelationBuildPublicationDesc > > - if (relation->rd_pubactions) > + if (relation->rd_pubdesc) > { > - pfree(relation->rd_pubactions); > - relation->rd_pubactions = NULL; > + pfree(relation->rd_pubdesc); > + relation->rd_pubdesc = NULL; > } > > What is the purpose of this code? Can't it all just be removed? > e.g. Can't you Assert that relation->rd_pubdesc is NULL at this point? > > (if it was not-null the function would have returned immediately from the top) I think it might be better to change this as a separate patch. > 5. src/include/catalog/pg_publication.h - typedef struct PublicationDesc > > +typedef struct PublicationDesc > +{ > + /* > + * true if the columns referenced in row filters which are used for > +UPDATE > + * or DELETE are part of the replica identity, or the publication > +actions > + * do not include UPDATE or DELETE. > + */ > + bool rf_valid_for_update; > + bool rf_valid_for_delete; > + > + AttrNumber invalid_rfcol_update; > + AttrNumber invalid_rfcol_delete; > + > + PublicationActions pubactions; > +} PublicationDesc; > + > > I did not see any point really for the pairs of booleans and AttNumbers. > AFAIK both of them shared exactly the same validation logic so I think you can > get by using fewer members here. the pairs of booleans are intended to fix the problem[2] reported earlier. [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS0PR01MB611367BB85115707CDB2F40CFB5A9%40OS0PR01MB6113.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com > > 6. src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list > > Missing the new typedef PublicationDesc Added. Attach the V70 patch set which fixed above comments and Greg's comments[3]. [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJcOf-eUnXPSDR1smg9VFktr6OY5%3D8zAsCX-rqctBdfgoEavDA%40mail.gmail.com Best regards, Hou zj
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: