Re: row filtering for logical replication

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Euler Taveira
Тема Re: row filtering for logical replication
Дата
Msg-id bede4167-8d63-4bd2-9ce6-f0a94d6aa6be@www.fastmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: row filtering for logical replication  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, at 3:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think what you said as (b) is wrong because we want to allow builtin
immutable functions. See discussion [1].
It was a typo. I mean "non-immutable" function.

True, but that is the main reason the review and development are being
done as separate sub-features. I suggest still keeping the similar
separation till some of the reviews of each of the patches are done,
otherwise, we need to rethink how to divide for easier review. We need
to retain the 0005 patch because that handles many problems without
which the main patch is incomplete and buggy w.r.t replica identity.
IMO we should merge sub-features as soon as we reach consensus. Every new
sub-feature breaks comments, tests and documentation if you want to remove or
rearrange patches. It seems I misread 0005. I agree that it is important. I'll
check it.


--
Euler Taveira

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Fix inappropriate uses of PG_GETARG_UINT32()
Следующее
От: Bharath Rupireddy
Дата:
Сообщение: Do we need pre-allocate WAL files during end-of-recovery checkpoint?