Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key
Date: 2017-12-07 19:53:21
Message-ID: 5b854760-6243-9d75-4614-88ee34e15854@anastigmatix.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/07/2017 02:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> A    B   C
> foo,bar,baz
> foo,bar,baz
>
> And then I say:
>
> UPDATE test set A = 1 where C = baz
>
> I have updated two rows because there is no primary key to identify the
> differences. Both of those rows should be updated and thus replicated

Would the subscriber see two records reporting update of a
foo,bar,baz row to 1, so it would do that to (arbitrarily)
one of them the first time, and (necessarily) the other, the
second time?

Or is that not the way it would work?

-Chap

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-12-07 19:58:01 Re: Signals in a BGW
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-12-07 19:48:12 Re: [HACKERS] CUBE seems a bit confused about ORDER BY