On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 5:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c:
>
> ATExecReplicaIdentity(): Regarding the question of how to handle
> REPLICA_IDENTITY_NOTHING: I see two ways to do this. Right now, the
> approach is that the user can set the replica identity freely, and we
> decide later based on that what we can replicate (e.g., no updates).
>
+1. This is what we are trying to do with the row filter patch. It
seems Hou-San has also mentioned the same on this thread [1].
> For this patch, that would mean we don't restrict what columns can be
> in the column list, but we check what actions we can replicate based
> on the column list. The alternative is that we require the column
> list to include the replica identity, as the patch is currently doing,
> which would mean that REPLICA_IDENTITY_NOTHING can be allowed since
> it's essentially a set of zero columns.
>
> I find the current behavior a bit weird on reflection. If a user
> wants to replicate on some columns and only INSERTs, that should be
> allowed regardless of what the replica identity columns are.
>
Right, I also raised the same point [2] related to INSERTs.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS0PR01MB5716330FFE3803DF887D073C94789%40OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
[2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BFoJ-J7wUG5s8zCtY0iBuN9LcjQcYhV4BD17xhuHfoug%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
