Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
| От | Tomas Vondra |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2b4fe205-9f8f-9ebc-1eda-f0d679819fce@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/14/22 13:47, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote: >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> Anyway, the fix does not address tablesync, as explained in [1]. I'm not >> sure what to do about it - in principle, we could calculate which >> relations to sync, and then eliminate "duplicates" (i.e. relations where >> we are going to sync an ancestor). >> > > As mentioned in my previous email [1], this appears to be a base code > issue (even without row filter or column filter work), so it seems > better to deal with it separately. It has been reported separately as > well [2] where we found some similar issues. > Right. I don't want to be waiting for that fix either, that'd block this patch unnecessarily. If there are no other comments, I'll go ahead, polish the existing patches a bit more and get them committed. We can worry about this pre-existing issue later. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: