On 01/13/2013 10:49 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 12:28 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> [Catching up on old threads.]
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2012 03:00 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 02:30 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>>>> Is it possible to replicate UPDATEs and DELETEs without a primary
>>>>> key in
>>>> No. There must be some way to logically identify the tuple.
>>> It can be done as selecting on _all_ attributes and updating/deleting
>>> just the first matching row
>>> create cursor ...
>>> select from t ... where t.* = (....)
>>> fetch one ...
>>> delete where current of ...
>>> This is on distant (round 3 or 4) roadmap for this work, just was
>>> if you had found any better way of doing this :)
>> That only works if every attribute's type has a notion of equality
>> ("xml" does
>> not). The equality operator may have a name other than "=", and an
>> named "=" may exist with semantics other than equality ("box" is
>> Code attempting this replication strategy should select an equality
>> the way typcache.c does so.
> Does this hint that postgreSQL also needs an sameness operator
> ( "is" or "===" in same languages).
> Or does "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" already work even for types without
> comparison operator ?
Just checked - it does not, it still looks for "=" operator so it is
How do people feel about adding a real sameness operator ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2013-01-13 15:44:51|
|Subject: Re: ToDo: log plans of cancelled queries|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2013-01-13 10:49:27|
|Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change