| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING |
| Date: | 2024-02-08 04:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | 222e84b3f258d5487de5b5a0f1119e00b84071bc.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:40 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> - how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity is
> + how to set the replica identity. If a table without a replica identity
> + (or with replica identity behavior the same as <literal>NOTHING</literal>) is
> added to a publication that replicates <command>UPDATE</command>
> or <command>DELETE</command> operations then
> subsequent <command>UPDATE</command> or <command>DELETE</command>
I had the impression that the root of the confusion was the perceived difference
between "REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING" and "no replica identity", and that change
doesn't improve that.
How about:
If a table without a replica identity (explicitly set to <literal>NOTHING</literal>,
or set to a primary key or index that doesn't exist) is added ...
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2024-02-08 04:53:52 | Re: 2024-02-08 release announcement draft |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-02-08 04:05:49 | Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) |