Re: row filtering for logical replication
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 344f4a31-e873-4aba-99ce-5503f19e56eb@www.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: row filtering for logical replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022, at 3:35 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:44 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:42 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:> >> > IMO we shouldn't reuse ReorderBufferChangeType. For a long-term solution, it is> > fragile. ReorderBufferChangeType has values that do not matter for row filter> > and it relies on the fact that REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INSERT,> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE and REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_DELETE are the first 3> > values from the enum, otherwise, it breaks rfnodes and no_filters in> > pgoutput_row_filter().> >>> I think you mean to say it will break in pgoutput_row_filter_init(). I> see your point but OTOH, if we do what you are suggesting then don't> we need an additional mapping between ReorderBufferChangeType and> RowFilterPublishAction as row filter and pgoutput_change API need to> use those values.>Can't we use 0,1,2 as indexes for rfnodes/no_filters based on changetype as they are local variables as that will avoid the fragilenessyou are worried about. I am slightly hesitant to introduce new enumwhen we are already using reorder buffer change type in pgoutput.c.
WFM. I used numbers + comments in a previous patch set [1]. I suggested the enum
because each command would be self explanatory.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: