On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:47 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:12 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I tested the flows with > > a) logical replication slot and get-changes. > > b) filtered data flows: pub-sub creation with row_filters, 'publish' > > options. I tried to verify plugin fields as compared to total_wal* > > fields. > > c) reset flow. > > > > While tests for a and c are present already. I don't see tests for b > > anywhere when it comes to stats. Do you think we shall add a test for > > filtered data using row-filter somewhere? > > Added a test in 028_row_filter. Please find it in the attached > patchset.
Test looks good. > I didn't find tests which test table level filtering or > operation level filtering. Can you please point me to such tests. I > will add similar test to other places. Once you review the test in > 028_row_filter, I will replicate it to other places you point out. > I can see a few tests of operation level filtering present in 'subscription/t/001_rep_changes.pl' and 'subscription/t/010_truncate.pl' > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:38:30AM +0530, shveta malik wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:08 AM Ashutosh Bapat > > > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In WalSndWriteData() we can't rely on what happens in a low level API > > > > like socket_putmessage(). And we are counting the number of bytes in > > > > the logically decoded message. So, I actually wonder whether we should > > > > count 1 byte of 'd' in sentBytes. Shveta, Bertand, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > If we are not counting all such metadata bytes ((or can't reliably do > > > so), then IMO, we shall skip counting msgtype as well. > > > > Agree. Maybe mention in the doc that metadata (including msgtype) bytes are > > not > > taken into account? > > We are counting the sentBytes in central places through which all the > logically decoded messages flow. So we are not missing on any metadata > bytes. Given that these bytes are part of the logically decoded > message itself, I think we should count them in the sentBytes. Now the > question remains is whether to count 4 bytes for length in the message > itself? The logical decoding code can not control that and thus should > not account for it. So I am leaving bytes counted for > pg_hton32((uint32) (len + 4)) out of sentBytes calculation. > -- Okay. thanks Shveta
