On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:17 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:59 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 9:23 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> > Somehow this approach of either new_tuple or old_tuple doesn't seem to
> > be very fruitful if the user requires that his replica is up-to-date
> > based on the filter condition. For that, I think you will need to
> > convert UPDATES to either INSERTS or DELETES if only new_tuple or
> > old_tuple matches the filter condition but not both matches the filter
> > condition.
> >
> > UPDATE
> > old-row (match) new-row (no match) -> DELETE
> > old-row (no match) new row (match) -> INSERT
> > old-row (match) new row (match) -> UPDATE
> > old-row (no match) new-row (no match) -> (drop change)
> >
>
> Adding a patch that strives to do the logic that I described above.
> For updates, the row filter is applied on both old_tuple
> and new_tuple. This patch assumes that the row filter only uses
> columns that are part of the REPLICA IDENTITY. (the current patch-set
> only
> restricts this for row-filters that are delete only)
> The old_tuple only has columns that are part of the old_tuple and have
> been changed, which is a problem while applying the row-filter. Since
> unchanged REPLICA IDENTITY columns
> are not present in the old_tuple, this patch creates a temporary
> old_tuple by getting such column values from the new_tuple and then
> applies the filter on this hand-created temp old_tuple. The way the
> old_tuple is created can be better optimised in future versions.
>
Yeah, this is the kind of idea which can work. One thing you might
want to check is the overhead of the additional deform/form cycle. You
might want to use Peter's tests above. I think you need to only form
old/new tuples when you have changed something in it but on a quick
look, it seems you are always re-forming both the tuples.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.