On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Peter Smith <
smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PSA the v47* patch set.
>
I found that even though there are now separately-maintained WHERE clauses per pubaction, there still seem to be problems when applying the old/new row rules for UPDATE.
A simple example of this was previously discussed in [1].
The example is repeated below:
---- Publication
create table tbl1 (a int primary key, b int);
create publication A for table tbl1 where (b<2) with(publish='insert');
create publication B for table tbl1 where (a>1) with(publish='update');
---- Subscription
create table tbl1 (a int primary key, b int);
create subscription sub connection 'dbname=postgres host=localhost port=10000' publication A,B;
---- Publication
insert into tbl1 values (1,1);
update tbl1 set a = 2;
So using the v47 patch-set, I still find that the UPDATE above results in publication of an INSERT of (2,1), rather than an UPDATE of (1,1) to (2,1).
This is according to the 2nd UPDATE rule below, from patch 0003.
+ * old-row (no match) new-row (no match) -> (drop change)
+ * old-row (no match) new row (match) -> INSERT
+ * old-row (match) new-row (no match) -> DELETE
+ * old-row (match) new row (match) -> UPDATE
This is because the old row (1,1) doesn't match the UPDATE filter "(a>1)", but the new row (2,1) does.
This functionality doesn't seem right to me. I don't think it can be assumed that (1,1) was never published (and thus requires an INSERT rather than UPDATE) based on these checks, because in this example, (1,1) was previously published via a different operation - INSERT (and using a different filter too).
I think the fundamental problem here is that these UPDATE rules assume that the old (current) row was previously UPDATEd (and published, or not published, according to the filter applicable to UPDATE), but this is not necessarily the case.
Or am I missing something?
----
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia