Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:45 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 2:57 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Conflict detection of truncated updates is detected as update_missing
> >> > and deleted update is detected as update_deleted. I was not sure if
> >> > truncated updates should also be detected as update_deleted, as the
> >> > document says truncate operation is "It has the same effect as an
> >> > unqualified DELETE on each table" at [1].
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is expected behavior because TRUNCATE would immediately reclaim
> >> space and remove all the data. So, there is no way to retain the
> >> removed row.
> >
> >
> > I’m not sure whether to call this expected behavior or simply
> acknowledge that we have no way to control it. Logically, it would have
> been preferable if it behaved like a DELETE, but we are constrained by the
> way TRUNCATE works.
> >
>
> I see your point. So, it is probably better to add a Note about this.
>

+1

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com