Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+pV-xGZtHjS-3E3_-kXYr17xkuUaJWEn7CuXsK3L6xhA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING  (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Question about behavior of deletes with REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 7:11 PM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:24 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:46 PM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
> >
> > ------
> > 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.
> > ------

LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless there are more comments. I am
planning to push this to HEAD as this is an improvement in existing
docs and not any bug fix.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero
Next
From: Jakob Egger
Date:
Subject: Re: Use Python "Limited API" in PL/Python