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 ?
Best regards,
Hou zj