Very good, records were changed and everything is ok.
Well, sorry for this stupid question but some time ago we did something
similar to this and our replica stoped, so I was just afraid of that
happenning again.
--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html
On 10/17/19 3:13 AM, PegoraroF10 wrote:
Correct, those records are on replica too. I´m just talking about the best
way to update those keys and all their dependent tables.
If I change them first on master they will not be replicated because it will
be an update and their pk will not be found on r
Correct, those records are on replica too. I´m just talking about the best
way to update those keys and all their dependent tables.
If I change them first on master they will not be replicated because it will
be an update and their pk will not be found on replica, correct ?
If so, do I need to upda
On 10/16/19 1:47 PM, PegoraroF10 wrote:
I have replication using Publication/Subscription and configured with REPLICA
IDENTITY DEFAULT, so it uses PK values to do the replication. Then, I´ve
imported data in a new schema and that has several tables with a record with
its PK = 0. Replication works
I have replication using Publication/Subscription and configured with REPLICA
IDENTITY DEFAULT, so it uses PK values to do the replication. Then, I´ve
imported data in a new schema and that has several tables with a record with
its PK = 0. Replication works but my application doesn´t because it nee
