On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 3:49 PM Ajin Cherian <itsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Attaching version 39-
>
Some comments on 0006
--
/*
+ * Write UPDATE to the output stream using cached virtual slots.
+ * Cached updates will have both old tuple and new tuple.
+ */
+void
+logicalrep_write_update_cached(StringInfo out, TransactionId xid, Relation rel,
+ TupleTableSlot *oldtuple, TupleTableSlot *newtuple,
bool binary)
+{
Function, logicalrep_write_update_cached is exactly the same as
logicalrep_write_update, except calling logicalrep_write_tuple_cached
vs logicalrep_write_tuple. So I don't like the idea of making
complete duplicate copies. instead either we can keep a if check or we
can pass this logicalrep_write_tuple(_cached) as a function pointer.
--
Looking further, I realized that "logicalrep_write_tuple" and
"logicalrep_write_tuple_cached" are completely duplicate except first
one is calling "heap_deform_tuple" and then using local values[] array
and the second one is directly using the slot->values[] array, so in
fact we can pass this also as a parameter or we can put just one if
check the populate the values[] and null array, so if it is cached we
will point directly to the slot->values[] otherwise
heap_deform_tuple(), I think this should be just one simple check.
--
+
+/*
+ * Change is checked against the row filter, if any.
+ *
+ * If it returns true, the change is replicated, otherwise, it is not.
+ */
+static bool
+pgoutput_row_filter_virtual(Relation relation, TupleTableSlot *slot,
RelationSyncEntry *entry)
IMHO, the comments should explain how it is different from the
pgoutput_row_filter function. Also comments are saying "If it returns
true, the change is replicated, otherwise, it is not" which is not
exactly true for this function, I mean based on that the caller will
change the action. So I think it is enough to say what this function
is doing but not required to say what the caller will do based on what
this function returns.
--
+ for (i = 0; i < desc->natts; i++)
+ {
+ Form_pg_attribute att = TupleDescAttr(desc, i);
+
+ /* if the column in the new_tuple is null, nothing to do */
+ if (tmp_new_slot->tts_isnull[i])
+ continue;
Put some comments over this loop about what it is trying to do, and
overall I think there are not sufficient comments in the
pgoutput_row_filter_update_check function.
--
+ /*
+ * Unchanged toasted replica identity columns are
+ * only detoasted in the old tuple, copy this over to the newtuple.
+ */
+ if ((att->attlen == -1 &&
VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(tmp_new_slot->tts_values[i])) &&
+ (!old_slot->tts_isnull[i] &&
+ !(VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK(old_slot->tts_values[i]))))
Is it ever possible that if the attribute is not NULL in the old slot
still it is stored as VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL_ONDISK? I think no, so
instead of adding
this last condition in check it should be asserted inside the if check.
--
static bool
-pgoutput_row_filter(PGOutputData *data, Relation relation, HeapTuple
oldtuple, HeapTuple newtuple, RelationSyncEntry *entry)
+pgoutput_row_filter_update_check(Relation relation, HeapTuple
oldtuple, HeapTuple newtuple, RelationSyncEntry *entry,
ReorderBufferChangeType *action)
+{
This function definition header is too long to fit in one line, so
better to break it. I think running will be a good idea.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
