Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
Date
Msg-id 50A7A5E3.3050608@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/17/2012 03:00 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 02:30 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Is it possible to replicate UPDATEs and DELETEs without a primary key in
>> PostgreSQL-R
> No. There must be some way to logically identify the tuple. Note,
> though, that theoretically any (unconditional) unique key would suffice.
> In practice, that usually doesn't matter, as you rarely have one or more
> unique keys without a primary.
...
> Are there other reasons to want tables without primary keys that I'm
> missing?
>
Nope. The only place a table without a primary key would be needed is a 
log table, but as these are (supposed to be) INSERT-only this is not a 
problem for them.

Hannu



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign key locks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Parser - Query Analyser