| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s). |
| Date: | 2024-03-07 13:42:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCVTFAFXovc5-7zoOQ3yGoXNoh8kYm=3aiGSBnCM2jje8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 13:00, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> So I think the original developers of REPLICA IDENTITY had the right
> idea here (commit 07cacba983ef), and we mustn't change this aspect,
> because it'll lead to data corruption in replication. Using a deferred
> PK for DDL considerations seems OK, but it seems certain that for actual
> data replication it's going to be a disaster.
>
Yes, that makes sense. If I understand correctly though, the
replication code uses relation->rd_replidindex (not
relation->rd_pkindex), although sometimes it's the same thing. So can
we get away with making sure that RelationGetIndexList() doesn't set
relation->rd_replidindex to a deferrable PK, while still allowing
relation->rd_pkindex to be one?
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-03-07 13:46:40 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | Shlok Kyal | 2024-03-07 13:01:38 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |