On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:24 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:46 PM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 8:07 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 8:22 AM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > + 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." > > > > > > I thought Amit's proposed text was mostly OK; it only needed the > > > "lacking a replica identity" part to be removed. (I've also changed > > > the e.g. to i.e.) > > > > > > Like this: > > > > > > "Tables with an insufficiently defined replica identity (i.e., 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 ...". > > > > > > > The term "insufficiently defined" feels off to me. If replica identity > > is set DEFAULT, but the table has no primary key, is the replica > > identity insufficiently defined, or is the table insufficiently > > defined... especially in cases where the "solution" would be to add a > > primary key, not change the replica identity. Similarly, I wouldn't > > consider setting replica identity NOTHING as insufficiently defined > > when it is actually intentionally defined. > > > > Fair enough. At this point, I'm happy to agree to any wording provided > it is correct and not misleading. I'll try to step back from quibbling > about wording it unless I think it is saying something wrong because > otherwise, this thread will be going in circles. I think in all > likelihood Amit will be the committer who pushes this, so it is him > you need to get on board. > > FYI, I fed your "split the difference" version into Chat-GPT and it > came up with the following suggestion, which I thought was perhaps the > best wording yet. (I added the <command> markup back to the > UPDATE/DELETE.... somehow those got lost along the way and I don't > know if that was deliberate) > > ------ > Tables with a replica identity defined as <literal>NOTHING</literal>, > <literal>DEFAULT</literal> without a primary key, or <literal>USING > INDEX</literal> with a dropped index cannot support > <command>UPDATE</command> or <command>DELETE</command> operations when > included in a publication replicating these actions. Attempting such > operations will result in an error on the publisher. > ------
Apologies, I think my late-night email missed cc-ing back to the list, which I've added back in. I thought Peter's version above was good enough to warrant an updated patch, which I'll (hopefully) leave to Amit to be the final arbiter of :-) Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
v4-0001-Expand-and-clarify-Replica-Identity-information.patch
Description: Binary data
