On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 12:00 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 7:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 6:46 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > > > 9. > > --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/proto.c > > +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/proto.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > > #include "access/sysattr.h" > > #include "catalog/pg_namespace.h" > > #include "catalog/pg_type.h" > > +#include "executor/executor.h" > > > > Do we really need this include now? Please check includes in other > > files as well and remove if anything is not required. > > ... .... > > Thanks for the comments. > Attach the V65 patch set which addressed the above comments and Peter's > comments[1].
The above comment (#9) doesn't seem to be addressed. Also, please check other includes as well. I find below include also unnecessary. --- a/src/backend/replication/pgoutput/pgoutput.c +++ b/src/backend/replication/pgoutput/pgoutput.c ... ... +#include "nodes/nodeFuncs.h" Some other comments: ================== 1. /* + * If we know everything is replicated and some columns are not part + * of replica identity, there is no point to check for other + * publications. + */ + if (pubactions.pubinsert && pubactions.pubupdate && + pubactions.pubdelete && pubactions.pubtruncate && + (!validate_rowfilter || !rfcol_valid)) break; Why do we need to continue for other publications after we find there is an invalid column in row_filter? 2. * For initial synchronization, row filtering can be ignored in 2 cases: + * + * 1) one of the subscribed publications has puballtables set to true + * + * 2) one of the subscribed publications is declared as ALL TABLES IN + * SCHEMA that includes this relation Isn't there one more case (when one of the publications has a table without any filter) where row filtering be ignored? I see that point being mentioned later but it makes things unclear. I have tried to make things clear in the attached. Apart from the above, I have made a few other cosmetic changes atop v65-0001*.patch. Kindly review and merge into the main patch if you are okay with these changes. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
