On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Vick Khera <vi...@khera.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:21 PM, David Pirotte <dpiro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The underlying purpose is to get Londiste to acknowledge the table's key, >> and this strategy seems to work without any problems. Londiste doesn't seem >> to care that the "primary key" is only reflected in pg_index and isn't >> accompanied by the relevant pg_constraint entry. Is modifying the >> underlying pg_catalog tables like this "Very Bad"? Will it have mysterious >> and unintended consequences, or can I get away with it? Thanks! > > The badness I see that will eventually come back to bite you is that > your unique constraint is lacking "NOT NULL" and a PK by definition > has NOT NULL. Therefore some other parts of the system is permitted > to make that assumption, and when stuff fails because you lied to the > system, you will probably never ever figure out or even know. >
Agreed. I'd be more inclined to change londiste, or just ditch it for something else that will recognize the unique index as a unique enough identifier to enable replication. That limitation is kind of lame. Robert Treat conjecture: xzilla.net consulting: omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
