| From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Ashutosh Bapat" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Confused comment about drop replica identity index |
| Date: | 2021-12-20 14:57:32 |
| Message-ID: | 53e4a0d4-4b7b-4001-99c3-576bc03f73ef@www.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:46:13AM +0000, wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > Here is a patch to correct wrong comment about
> > REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX, And improve the pg-doc.
>
> That's mostly fine. I have made some adjustments as per the
> attached.
Your patch looks good to me.
> Pondering more about this thread, I don't think we should change the
> existing behavior in the back-branches, but I don't have any arguments
> about doing such changes on HEAD to help the features being worked
> on, either. So I'd like to apply and back-patch the attached, as a
> first step, to fix the inconsistency.
>
What do you think about the attached patch? It forbids the DROP INDEX. We might
add a detail message but I didn't in this patch.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Disallow-dropping-an-index-that-is-used-by-replic.patch | text/x-patch | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-12-20 15:07:09 | Re: Is my home $HOME or is it getpwent()->pw_dir ? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-12-20 14:49:09 | Re: sqlsmith: ERROR: XX000: bogus varno: 2 |