Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+nf=zBLq75w9yYUw+HL5OvFfgRfeM8yNNpEjo2pLARLg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:45 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 2:57 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Conflict detection of truncated updates is detected as update_missing
>> > and deleted update is detected as update_deleted. I was not sure if
>> > truncated updates should also be detected as update_deleted, as the
>> > document says truncate operation is "It has the same effect as an
>> > unqualified DELETE on each table" at [1].
>> >
>>
>> This is expected behavior because TRUNCATE would immediately reclaim
>> space and remove all the data. So, there is no way to retain the
>> removed row.
>
>
> I’m not sure whether to call this expected behavior or simply acknowledge that we have no way to control it.
Logically,it would have been preferable if it behaved like a DELETE, but we are constrained by the way TRUNCATE works. 
>

I see your point. So, it is probably better to add a Note about this.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c)
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication