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 ? Best regards, Hou zj