On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When researching and writing a top-up patch about this.
> > > > I found a possible issue which I'd like to confirm first.
> > > >
> > > > It's possible the table is published in two publications A and B,
> > > > publication A only publish "insert" , publication B publish "update".
> > > > When UPDATE, both row filter in A and B will be executed. Is this behavior
> > > expected?
> > > >
> > > > Good question. No. The code should check the action before combining
> > > > the multiple row filters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you mean to say that we should give an error on Update/Delete if any of the
> > > publications contain table rowfilter that has columns that are not part of the
> > > primary key or replica identity? I think this is what Hou-san has implemented in
> > > his top-up patch and I also think this is the right behavior.
> >
> > Yes, the top-up patch will give an error if the columns in row filter are not part of
> > replica identity when UPDATE and DELETE.
> >
> > But the point I want to confirm is that:
> >
> > ---
> > create publication A for table tbl1 where (b<2) with(publish='insert');
> > create publication B for table tbl1 where (a>1) with(publish='update');
> > ---
> >
> > When UPDATE on the table 'tbl1', is it correct to combine and execute both of
> > the row filter in A(b<2) and B(a>1) ?(it's the current behavior)
> >
> > Because the filter in A has an unlogged column(b) and the publication A only
> > publish "insert", so for UPDATE, should we skip the row filter in A and only
> > execute the row filter in B ?
> >
>
> But since the filters are OR'ed together does it even matter?
>
> Now that your top-up patch now prevents invalid updates/deletes, this
> other point is only really a question about the cache performance,
> isn't it?
>
Irrespective of replica identity I think there is still a functional
behaviour question, right?
e.g.
create publication p1 for table census where (country = 'Aust') with
(publish="update")
create publication p2 for table census where (country = 'NZ') with
(publish='insert')
Should it be possible to UPDATE for country 'NZ' or not?
Is this the same as your question Hou-san?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia