| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber |
| Date: | 2022-06-21 02:19:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHz_+a=fw0vw7DtDHEW+=BZYdxkTFYxCse==S1LaA4bAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:46 PM shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 1:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > One minor comment:
> > + /*
> > + * If it is a partitioned table, we don't check it, we will check its
> > + * partition later.
> > + */
> >
> > Can we change the above comment to: "For partitioned tables, we only
> > need to care if the target partition is updatable (aka has PK or RI
> > defined for it)."?
> >
> Thanks for your comment. Modified in the attached patches.
How about: ...target "leaf" partition is updatable
Regarding the commit message's top line, which is this:
Fix partition table's RI checking on the subscriber.
I think it should spell out REPLICA IDENTITY explicitly to avoid the
commit being confused to have to do with "Referential Integrity
checking".
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-06-21 02:32:51 | Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-21 01:44:57 | Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths |