Re: row filtering for logical replication
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-th7fSa+8AqHp5K081tWwHj2HGbLxdC0=JtJ2bS7pQNqA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: row filtering for logical replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: row filtering for logical replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 5:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:43 PM Tomas Vondra > > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > > > Do we log the TOAST-ed values that were not updated? > > > > No, we don't, I have submitted a patch sometime back to fix that [1] > > > > That patch seems to log WAL for key unchanged columns. What about if > unchanged non-key columns? Do they get logged as part of the new tuple > or is there some other way we can get those? If not, then we need to > probably think of restricting filter clause in some way. But what sort of restrictions? I mean we can not put based on data type right that will be too restrictive, other option is only to allow replica identity keys columns in the filter condition? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: