On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:06 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2025, at 11:28, Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 6:11 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Amit, > >> > >> Thanks for asking. > >> > >>> On Nov 11, 2025, at 19:18, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 1:36 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> * BACKGROUND > >>>> > >>>> This requirement comes from several users operating large deployments, > >>>> particularly in HIS (Hospital Information Systems). The situation can be > >>>> summarized as follows: > >>>> > >>>> - A central DB operations team maintains the main database and > >>>> configures logical replication for all tables. > >>>> - Multiple third-party application vendors are allowed to create new > >>>> tables in that database. > >>>> - Some of these newly created tables lack a primary key. Since logical > >>>> replication with `REPLICATION IDENTITY DEFAULT` requires a primary key, > >>>> such tables silently fail to replicate. > >>>> - The DB operations team must then spend significant effort identifying > >>>> the affected tables and correcting them manually. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Can you share an example of how we silently fail to replicate? Won't > >>> in such cases UPDATE/DELETE will anyway raise an ERROR? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, UPDATE/DELETE will fail. That’s the easy case to expose the error. > >> Actually my patch will allow the update/delete. > >> > >> However, some tables, like dictionary tables, they are important, but > >> don’t have much update/delete, they may silently fail to replicate. > > > > But other than UPDATE/DELETE for what operation we need RI, I mean > > INSERT would work without any RI and UPDATE/DELETE will fail on the > > publisher itself without setting RI, so can you explain the exact case > > where it will silently fail to replicate? > > > > Thanks for asking. When fallback to FULL, UPDATE/DELETE will be allowed in > the publisher side. In my first email, attached v1 patch is a PoC that has > implemented the logic. >
So, without patch, there is no way we can silently replicate the UPDATE/DELETE. Ideally, users should alter the tables and make RI as FULL in such cases if they don't have PK for such tables. Falling back to FULL for DEFAULT when the table doesn't have PK based on GUC has a downside that it will increase WAL volume by a large amount. I think it should be done specific to tables that users want to replicate. I don't know what is a good way to give to users who don't want to do the required setup but if we really want to provide something, it is better to allow such a thing via the publication option instead. I think it would be good to do such an enhancement if we have more community support and some other users also appreciate such a feature. Otherwise, adding something which is specific to a particular user sounds like a recipe of maintenance burden especially when we already provide a way to achieve the same thing as is required by the user. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
