On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:54 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on. > > > > I will add a doc patch to explain the log format after the 0001 is RFC. > > > > > > > > > > Thank You for addressing comments. Please see this scenario: > > > > > > create table tab1(pk int primary key, val1 int unique, val2 int); > > > > > > pub: insert into tab1 values(1,1,1); > > > sub: insert into tab1 values(2,2,3); > > > pub: update tab1 set val1=2 where pk=1; > > > > > > Wrong 'replica identity' column logged? shouldn't it be pk? > > > > > > ERROR: conflict detected on relation "public.tab1": > > > conflict=update_exists > > > DETAIL: Key already exists in unique index "tab1_val1_key", modified > > > locally in transaction 801 at 2024-08-19 08:50:47.974815+05:30. > > > Key (val1)=(2); existing local tuple (2, 2, 3); remote tuple (1, 2, > > > 1); replica identity (val1)=(1). > > > > > > > The docs say that by default replica identity is primary_key [1] (see > > REPLICA IDENTITY), > > yes, I agree. But here the importance of dumping it was to know the > value of RI as well which is being used as an identification of row > being updated rather than row being conflicted. Value is logged > correctly. >
Agreed, sorry, I misunderstood the problem reported. I thought the suggestion was to use 'primary key' instead of 'replica identity' but you pointed out that the column used in 'replica identity' was wrong. We should fix this one. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
