Re: Confused comment about drop replica identity index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Euler Taveira
Subject Re: Confused comment about drop replica identity index
Date
Msg-id 53e4a0d4-4b7b-4001-99c3-576bc03f73ef@www.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Confused comment about drop replica identity index  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:46:13AM +0000, wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Here is a patch to correct wrong comment about
> REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX, And improve the pg-doc.

That's mostly fine.  I have made some adjustments as per the
attached.
Your patch looks good to me.

Pondering more about this thread, I don't think we should change the
existing behavior in the back-branches, but I don't have any arguments
about doing such changes on HEAD to help the features being worked
on, either.  So I'd like to apply and back-patch the attached, as a
first step, to fix the inconsistency.

What do you think about the attached patch? It forbids the DROP INDEX. We might
add a detail message but I didn't in this patch.


--
Euler Taveira

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: sqlsmith: ERROR: XX000: bogus varno: 2
Next
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: Is my home $HOME or is it getpwent()->pw_dir ?