On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:58 AM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 12:10 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > Attach the V49 patch set, which addressed all the above comments on the 0002 > patch. > > I've been testing the latest versions of this patch set. I'm attaching a new > patch set based on v49. The suggested fixes are in separate patches after the > current one so it is easier to integrate them into the related patch. The > majority of these changes explains some decision to improve readability IMO. > > row-filter x row filter. I'm not a native speaker but "row filter" is widely > used in similar contexts so I suggest to use it. (I didn't adjust the commit > messages)
Fixed in v51* [1]. And I also updated the commit comments. > > An ancient patch use the term coerce but it was changed to cast. Coercion > implies an implicit conversion [1]. If you look at a few lines above you will > see that this expression expects an implicit conversion. Fixed in v51* [1] > > I modified the query to obtain the row filter expressions to (i) add the > schema > pg_catalog to some objects and (ii) use NOT EXISTS instead of subquery (it > reads better IMO). Not changed in v51, but IIUC this might be fixed soon if it is confirmed to be better. [2 Amit] > A detail message requires you to capitalize the first word of sentences and > includes a period at the end. Fixed in v51* [1] > > It seems all server messages and documentation use the terminology "WHERE > clause". Let's adopt it instead of "row filter". Fixed in v51* [1] > > I reviewed 0003. It uses TupleTableSlot instead of HeapTuple. I probably > missed > the explanation but it requires more changes (logicalrep_write_tuple and 3 new > entries into RelationSyncEntry). I replaced this patch with a slightly > different one (0005 in this patch set) that uses HeapTuple instead. I didn't > only simple tests and it requires tests. I noticed that this patch does not > include a test to cover the case where TOASTed values are not included in the > new tuple. We should probably add one. Not changed in v51. See response from Ajin [3 Ajin]. > > I agree with Amit that it is a good idea to merge 0001, 0002, and 0005. I > would > probably merge 0004 because it is just isolated changes. Fixed in v51* [1] per Amit's suggestion (so the 0004 is still separate) ------ [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs%2BdACvefCZasRE%3DP%3DDtaNmQvM3kiGyKyBHANA0yGcTZw%40mail.gmail.com [2 Amit] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KwoA5k8v9z9e4ZPN_X%3D1GAmQmsWyauFwZpKiSHqy6eZA%40mail.gmail.com [3 Ajin] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFPTHDbfpPNh3GLGjySS%3DAuRfbQPQFNvfiyG1GDQW2kz1yT7Og%40mail.gmail.com Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
