Re: row filtering for logical replication
| От | Euler Taveira |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | bede4167-8d63-4bd2-9ce6-f0a94d6aa6be@www.fastmail.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 Mon, Dec 6, 2021, at 3:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think what you said as (b) is wrong because we want to allow builtinimmutable functions. See discussion [1].
It was a typo. I mean "non-immutable" function.
True, but that is the main reason the review and development are beingdone as separate sub-features. I suggest still keeping the similarseparation till some of the reviews of each of the patches are done,otherwise, we need to rethink how to divide for easier review. We needto retain the 0005 patch because that handles many problems withoutwhich the main patch is incomplete and buggy w.r.t replica identity.
IMO we should merge sub-features as soon as we reach consensus. Every new
sub-feature breaks comments, tests and documentation if you want to remove or
rearrange patches. It seems I misread 0005. I agree that it is important. I'll
check it.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: