On 3/21/22 12:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:56 AM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> However, while looking at how pgoutput, I realized one thing - for row
>> filters we track them "per operation", depending on which operations are
>> defined for a given publication. Shouldn't we do the same thing for
>> column lists, really?
>>
>> I mean, if there are two publications with different column lists, one
>> for inserts and the other one for updates, isn't it wrong to merge these
>> two column lists?
>>
>
> The reason we can't combine row filters for inserts with
> updates/deletes is that if inserts have some column that is not
> present in RI then during update filtering (for old tuple) it will
> give an error as the column won't be present in WAL log.
>
> OTOH, the same problem won't be there for the column list/filter patch
> because all the RI columns are there in the column list (for
> update/delete) and we don't need to apply a column filter for old
> tuples in either update or delete.
>
> Basically, the filter rules are slightly different for row filters and
> column lists, so we need them (combine of filters) for one but not for
> the other. Now, for the sake of consistency with row filters, we can
> do it but as such there won't be any problem or maybe we can just add
> a comment for the same in code.
>
OK, thanks for the explanation. I'll add a comment explaining this to
the function initializing the column filter.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company