On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:54 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
<houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 3:18 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:16 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > Based on this direction, I tried to write a top up POC patch(0005) which
> > > I'd
> > > like to share.
> > >
> > > The top up patch mainly did the following things.
> > >
> > > * Move the row filter columns invalidation to CheckCmdReplicaIdentity, so
> > > that the invalidation is executed only when actual UPDATE or DELETE
> > > executed on
> > > the published relation. It's consistent with the existing check about
> > > replica
> > > identity.
> > >
> > > * Cache the results of the validation for row filter columns in relcache
> > > to
> > > reduce the cost of the validation. It's safe because every operation that
> > > change the row filter and replica identity will invalidate the relcache.
> > >
> > > Also attach the v42 patch set to keep cfbot happy.
> >
> > Hi Hou-san.
> >
> > Thanks for providing your "top-up" 0005 patch!
> >
> > I suppose the goal will be to later merge this top-up with the current
> > 0002 validation patch, but in the meantime here are my review comments
> > for 0005.
>
> Thanks for the review and many valuable comments !
>
> > 8) src/backend/executor/execReplication.c - CheckCmdReplicaIdentity
> >
> > But which are the bad filter columns?
> >
> > Previously the Row Filter column validation gave errors for the
> > invalid filter column, but in this top-up patch there is no indication
> > which column or which filter or which publication was the bad one -
> > only that "something" bad was detected. IMO this might make it very
> > difficult for the user to know enough about the cause of the problem
> > to be able to fix the offending filter.
>
> If we want to report the invalid filter column, I can see two possibilities.
>
> 1) Instead of a bool flag, we cache a AttrNumber flag which indicates the
> invalid column number(0 means all valid). We can report it in the error
> message.
>
> 2) Everytime we decide to report an error, we traverse all the publications to
> find the invalid column again and report it.
>
> What do you think ?
Perhaps your idea #1 is good enough. At least if we provide just the
bad column name then the user can use psql \d+ to find all filter
publications that include that bad column. Maybe that can be a HINT
for the error message.
>
> > 13). src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c - function
> > RelationGetPublicationInfo
> > +/*
> > + * Get publication information for the given relation.
> > + */
> > +struct PublicationInfo *
> > +RelationGetPublicationInfo(Relation relation)
> > +{
> > + List *puboids;
> > + ListCell *lc;
> > + MemoryContext oldcxt;
> > + Oid schemaid;
> > + Bitmapset *bms_replident = NULL;
> > + PublicationInfo *pubinfo = palloc0(sizeof(PublicationInfo));
> > +
> > + pubinfo->rfcol_valid_for_replid = true;
> >
> > It is not entirely clear to me why this function is always pallocing
> > the PublicationInfo and then returning a copy of what is stored in the
> > relation->rd_pubinfo. This then puts a burden on the callers (like the
> > GetRelationPublicationActions etc) to make sure to free that memory.
> > Why can't we just return the relation->rd_pubinfo directly And avoid
> > all the extra palloc/memcpy/free?
>
> Normally, I think only the cache management function should change the data in
> relcache. Return relation->xx directly might have a risk that user could
> change the data in relcache. So, the management function usually return a copy
> of cache data so that user is free to change it without affecting the real
> cache data.
OK.
> 16) Tests... CREATE PUBLICATION succeeds
>
> > I have not yet reviewed any of the 0005 tests, but there was some big
> > behaviour difference that I noticed.
> >
> > I think now with the 0005 top-up patch the replica identify validation
> > is deferred to when UPDATE/DELETE is executed. I don’t know if this
> > will be very user friendly. It means now sometimes you can
> > successfully CREATE a PUBLICATION even though it will fail as soon as
> > you try to use it.
>
> I am not sure, the initial idea here is to make the check of replica identity
> consistent.
>
> Currently, if user create a publication which publish "update" but the
> relation
> in the publication didn't mark as replica identity, then user can create the
> publication successfully. but the later UPDATE will report an error.
>
OK. I see there is a different perspective; I will leave this to see
what other people think.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
