Skip to content

Spoc 342. Replace core-based delta apply approach with native extensible one. #272

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
danolivo wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Spoc 342. Replace core-based delta apply approach with native extensible one. #272

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0dab8a2
Introduce a delta_apply security label management.
danolivo Nov 24, 2025
f70fc20
Replicate SECURITY LABEL commands.
danolivo Nov 25, 2025
3fc45c1
Use security labels to implement the delta_apply feature.
danolivo Nov 26, 2025
7c39bf7
Remove the core attribute options.
danolivo Nov 26, 2025
e6bb068
Let the security label-based delta apply feature be a first-class cit…
danolivo Nov 28, 2025
6d70b4b
Disallow the delta apply feature on nullable columns.
danolivo Dec 2, 2025
d57f344
Rebase onto current master
danolivo Dec 17, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 0 additions & 3 deletions Makefile
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -23,9 +23,6 @@ PG_CPPFLAGS += -I$(libpq_srcdir) \
-I$(realpath src/compat/$(PGVER)) \
-Werror=implicit-function-declaration
SHLIB_LINK += $(libpq) $(filter -lintl, $(LIBS))
ifdef NO_LOG_OLD_VALUE
PG_CPPFLAGS += -DNO_LOG_OLD_VALUE
endif

REGRESS := __placeholder__
EXTRA_CLEAN += $(control_path) spock_compat.bc
Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions include/spock.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#define SPOCK_VERSION_NUM 60000

#define EXTENSION_NAME "spock"
#define spock_SECLABEL_PROVIDER "spock"
Copy link
Member

@mason-sharp mason-sharp Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we use capitalized SPOCK?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@danolivo danolivo Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We may capitalise the define's name - I just followed the naming example (borrowed from pgactive) to make cross-code browsing easier. We definitely shouldn't capitalise the define's value.

Copy link
Member

@mason-sharp mason-sharp Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like they use pgative_ everywhere for their #defines, whereas we use SPOCK_ everywhere for our existing #defines. It would be more consistent with our existing code to use SPOCK_.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@danolivo danolivo Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, there are no objectives from my side - it's just too trivial stuff.


#define REPLICATION_ORIGIN_ALL "all"

Expand Down
7 changes: 5 additions & 2 deletions include/spock_relcache.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,11 +44,12 @@ typedef struct SpockRelation
Oid idxoid;
Relation rel;
int *attmap;
bool has_delta_columns;
Oid *delta_apply_functions;

/* Additional cache, only valid as long as relation mapping is. */
bool hasTriggers;

Oid *delta_functions;
Copy link
Member

@mason-sharp mason-sharp Dec 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel we should avoid changing variable names unless the original name is very confusing. It makes diffing different versions more difficult to sort through

Copy link
Contributor Author

@danolivo danolivo Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure I understand what it means - it is a new variable, isn't it?

Copy link
Member

@mason-sharp mason-sharp Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looked like delta_apply_functions -> delta_functions and has_delta_columns -> has_delta_apply

Copy link
Contributor Author

@danolivo danolivo Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, we may maintain two approaches (core-based and extension-based), but they must be kept separate. So, their delta_apply structures can't intersect. That's why they have different names. If we decide to stick to the extension-based approach, one more commit might rename everything.

bool has_delta_apply;
} SpockRelation;

extern void spock_relation_cache_update(uint32 remoteid,
Expand All @@ -68,6 +69,8 @@ extern void spock_relation_cache_reset(void);

extern Oid spock_lookup_delta_function(char *fname, Oid typeoid);

extern Oid get_replication_identity(Relation rel);

struct SpockTupleData;

#endif /* SPOCK_RELCACHE_H */
194 changes: 0 additions & 194 deletions patches/15/pg15-015-attoptions.diff
View file
Open in desktop

This file was deleted.

Loading