Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> > > + If a table with replica identity set to <literal>NOTHING</literal>
> > > + (or set <command>DEFAULT</command> but with no primary key, or set
> > > + <command>USING INDEX</command> but the index has been dropped) is
> > > + added to a publication that replicates <command>UPDATE</command>
> > > + or <command>DELETE</command> operations,
> > > + subsequent <command>UPDATE</command> or <command>DELETE</command>
> > > + operations will cause an error on the publisher.
> > >
> > > In the above change, we missed the existing "a table without a replica
> > > identity" part. A slightly different way to write the above change
> > > could be: "Tables lacking a replica identity or with an insufficiently
> > > defined replica identity (e.g., set to NOTHING, set to DEFAULT but
> > > with no primary key, or set USING INDEX but the index has been
> > > dropped) cannot be updated or deleted when added to a publication that
> > > replicates these operations. Attempting to do so will result in an
> > > error on the publisher."
> > >
> >
>
<snip>
> > Aside from that, your above language is a little more compact with the
> > trade-off of being less explicit in talking about publication
> > properties; I didn't change that part because it didn't seem like an
> > issue, but we could update that second part if you feel strongly about
> > it. LMK.
> >
>
> One of the reasons I tried to rephrase the sentence was it appears to
> be long. I agree that the way you proposed is more explicit but the
> way I phrased also conveys the information in a bit succinct form. I
> think you can once propose with the wording on those lines then let us
> what Peter or others think about it.
>

Splitting the difference would look like this?

"Tables with replica identity set <literal>NOTHING</literal>,
set <literal>DEFAULT</literal> but with no primary key, or set
<literal>USING INDEX</literal> but the index has been
dropped, cannot be updated or deleted when added to a publication that
replicates these operations. Attempting to do so will result in an
error on the publisher."

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net