Hi,
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think the point here is that you need to distinguish which tuple you
> need to update. For this, our Replicator uses the primary key only;
> there's no way to use another candidate key (unique not null). It would
> certainly be possible to use a different candidate key,
Yeah, and for this to work, the *sender* needs to decide on a key to use.
> but as far as I
> know no customer has ever requested this.
I can't see the use case for a separate REPLICATION KEY, different from
the PRIMARY KEY, either..
> (FWIW we don't send the old values -- only the original PK columns, the
> values of columns that changed, and the "update mask" in terms of
> heap_modify_tuple.)
Yup, that's pretty much the same what I'm doing for Postgres-R.
Regards
Markus