Re: SQL:2011 application time
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 66e47fc0-77b7-4763-9b70-5c0b7ff15f21@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL:2011 application time (Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SQL:2011 application time
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.11.24 18:25, Paul Jungwirth wrote: > On 11/13/24 02:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I have committed the documentation patches >> >> v43-0001-Add-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS-and-PERIOD-to-ALTER-TABLE-r.patch >> v43-0002-Update-conexclop-docs-for-WITHOUT-OVERLAPS.patch > > Thanks! > >> For the logical replication fixes >> >> v43-0003-Fix-logical-replication-for-temporal-tables.patch >> >> can you summarize what the issues currently are? Is it currently >> broken, or just not working as well as it could? >> >> AFAICT, there might be two separate issues. One is that you can't use >> a temporal index as replica identity, because ALTER TABLE rejects it. >> The other is that a subscriber fails to make use of a replica identity >> index, because it uses the wrong strategy numbers. > > Correct, there are two issues this commit fixes: > > On the publisher side: You can use REPLICA IDENTITY DEFAULT with a > temporal PK/UNIQUE index. There is no validation step, and sending the > changes works fine. But REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX fails because the > validation step rejects the non-btree index. Ok, I have committed the fix for this, and I'll continue working through the rest of the patches. > Then on the subscriber side, we are not applying changes correctly, > because we assume the strategy numbers are btree numbers.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: