Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key
Date: 2017-12-18 20:52:55
Message-ID: 20171218205254.z3ex4szrojo3bhu2@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-12-18 12:43:24 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> This is the behavior I was expecting. As I said, I may have misunderstood
> the responses but it is acting as I would expect.

Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that
logical rep is behaving correctly, right?

FWIW, I wonder if we need to add a warning somewhere about FULL
replication, given it's essentially O(#changes * #rows) -> O(n^2) for
updating the whole table.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2017-12-18 20:57:02 Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2017-12-18 20:43:24 Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key