On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2024 5:39 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2)
> > Another case which might confuse user:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t1 (pk integer primary key, val1 integer, val2 integer);
> >
> > On PUB: insert into t1 values(1,10,10); insert into t1 values(2,20,20);
> >
> > On SUB: update t1 set pk=3 where pk=2;
> >
> > Data on PUB: {1,10,10}, {2,20,20}
> > Data on SUB: {1,10,10}, {3,20,20}
> >
> > Now on PUB: update t1 set val1=200 where val1=20;
> >
> > On Sub, I get this:
> > 2024-07-10 14:44:00.160 IST [648287] LOG: conflict update_missing detected
> > on relation "public.t1"
> > 2024-07-10 14:44:00.160 IST [648287] DETAIL: Did not find the row to be
> > updated.
> > 2024-07-10 14:44:00.160 IST [648287] CONTEXT: processing remote data for
> > replication origin "pg_16389" during message type "UPDATE" for replication
> > target relation "public.t1" in transaction 760, finished at 0/156D658
> >
> > To user, it could be quite confusing, as val1=20 exists on sub but still he gets
> > update_missing conflict and the 'DETAIL' is not sufficient to give the clarity. I
> > think on HEAD as well (have not tested), we will get same behavior i.e. update
> > will be ignored as we make search based on RI (pk in this case). So we are not
> > worsening the situation, but now since we are detecting conflict, is it possible
> > to give better details in 'DETAIL' section indicating what is actually missing?
>
> I think It's doable to report the row value that cannot be found in the local
> relation, but the concern is the potential risk of exposing some
> sensitive data in the log. This may be OK, as we are already reporting the
> key value for constraints violation, so if others also agree, we can add
> the row value in the DETAIL as well.
This is still awaiting some feedback. I feel it will be good to add
some pk value at-least in DETAIL section, like we add for other
conflict types.
thanks
Shveta