| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key |
| Date: | 2017-12-18 20:57:02 |
| Message-ID: | bd94f7f3-afd2-0bb0-f886-239773c4e2ad@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/2017 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that
> logical rep is behaving correctly, right?
Correct. I am not sure where the miscommunication was (fully willing to
accept it was on my side) but if I update multiple rows in a single
statement, all the rows that were modified get replicated. That is the
behavior I would have expected.
> FWIW, I wonder if we need to add a warning somewhere about FULL
> replication, given it's essentially O(#changes * #rows) -> O(n^2) for
> updating the whole table.
The docs do mention it is a performance hit but something a little more
"IF YOU DO THIS, BEWARE" may be good.
Thanks,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-12-18 21:23:12 | Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-18 20:52:55 | Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key |