On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > > > > > > Definitely couldn't hurt; Updated patch cleans that up a bit and > > > tweaks the link to alter table replica status. > > > > > > > IIUC, we have changed following to clarify the REPLICA IDENTITY usage: > > If a table without a replica identity is > > - added to a publication that replicates <command>UPDATE</command> > > - or <command>DELETE</command> operations then > > - subsequent <command>UPDATE</command> or <command>DELETE</command> > > - operations will cause an error on the publisher. > > <command>INSERT</command> > > - operations can proceed regardless of any replica identity. > > > > + 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." > > > > We didn't miss it, we removed it. It is a misnomer to say a table > doesn't have a replica identity, because all tables do and always must > have one, hence pg_class.relreplident is NOT NULL. In most cases it is > set DEFAULT and people don't think about it, but it isn't due to a > lack of or insufficient replica identity, and I think that language is > part of what confuses people. >
Okay, I got it. > 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. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
