DBZ-5398 The column is referenced as PRIMARY KEY, but a matching column is not defined in table

[harveyyue]

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/DBZ-5398
@jpechane @Naros I couldn't find a graceful solution to parse the column name from index definition including a function. Currently, the regex expression just support the function including parameters which split by comma, and the nested function also not be supported as below.
coalesce(coalesce(col1,'1'),'xxx')

[Naros]

I can't help but wonder if this is over-engineered and could lead to other problems. This may not apply to PG but at least for other databases, there are situations where the PK consists of a function call that wraps a synthetic column that isn't naturally available in the JDBC metadata, i.e. ROWID or some other "hidden" column. I believe PG has similar things like CTID.

So I'm inclined to question whether a better solution for this would have been to flag that the PK/index tuple we identified should be excluded entirely as a unique index or primary key mapping like we do for Oracle.

[harveyyue]

@Naros You means we can exclude the entire index columns if including function expression according method isTableUniqueIndexIncluded. I know the following index columns are not database internal or "hidden" column.
However, I will imeplement the solution as you sugguest.

Create Index Statement:
create unique index counter_ukey on counter(campaign_id, COALESCE(group_id, ''::text));

[Naros]

Yes @harveyyue, I most raised the question as a means to be consistent. I'll defer to @jpechane if he's okay with this pattern but I think in general I'd prefer consistency.

[jpechane]

@harveyyue I am fine with this soution but will it capture siatuatilons like index being defined as for example col1 + col2 as I suppose there can be not only function call but arbitrary expression.

[jpechane]

Could you please add a test cae similar to #3728 ?

[harveyyue]

Could you please add a test cae similar to #3728 ?

Ok, will do it.

[harveyyue]

@jpechane Add a expression regex including these operators + - * / < > = ~ ! @ # % ^ & | ?`, also add a expression test case.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-SYNTAX-OPERATORS

[Naros]

Overall this LGTM @harveyyue, thanks a lot for this!

[Naros]

Applied to main (=2.0).