On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:43 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:07 PM shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 8:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have pushed the first bug-fix patch today.
> >
> > Attached the remaining patches which are rebased.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Comments on v9-0001:
>
> + * Don't throw any error here just mark the relation entry as not updatable,
> + * as replica identity is only for updates and deletes but inserts can be
> + * replicated even without it.
>
> I know you're simply copying the old comment, but I think we can
> rewrite it to be slightly more useful:
>
> We just mark the relation entry as not updatable here if the local
> replica identity is found to be insufficient and leave it to
> check_relation_updatable() to throw the actual error if needed.
>
I am fine with improving this comment but it would be better if in
some way we keep the following part of the comment: "as replica
identity is only for updates and deletes but inserts can be replicated
even without it." as that makes it more clear why it is okay to just
mark the entry as not updatable. One idea could be: "We just mark the
relation entry as not updatable here if the local replica identity is
found to be insufficient and leave it to check_relation_updatable() to
throw the actual error if needed. This is because replica identity is
only for updates and deletes but inserts can be replicated even
without it.". Feel free to suggest if you have any better ideas?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
