On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:18 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 11:32 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:39 PM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021, at 10:39 AM, houzj.f...@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
