On 18/12/17 21:57, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that
>> logical rep is behaving correctly, right?
>
> Correct. I am not sure where the miscommunication was (fully willing to
> accept it was
On 12/18/2017 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that
logical rep is behaving correctly, right?
Correct. I am not sure where the miscommunication was (fully willing to
accept it was on my side) but if I update multiple rows in a single
On 2017-12-18 12:43:24 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> This is the behavior I was expecting. As I said, I may have misunderstood
> the responses but it is acting as I would expect.
Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that
logical rep is behaving correctly, right?
FWIW, I
On 12/07/2017 12:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Not a problem. If you updated both rows, then there's two cases:
a) the update actually changed the column values. In which case the first
per-row
change that's replicated updates the first row, but the second one won't
again find it as match
On 07/12/17 21:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> On 12/07/2017 02:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> AB C
>>> foo,bar,baz
>>> foo,bar,baz
>>>
>>> And then I say:
>>>
>>> UPDATE test set A = 1 where C = baz
>>>
>>> I have updated two rows because
On 2017-12-07 11:38:51 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Petr Jelinek
> > wrote:
> > > No it won't, it will update only one row, it does not try to find
> > > multiple matching rows.
> > Good, because that's exactly what
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 02:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> AB C
>> foo,bar,baz
>> foo,bar,baz
>>
>> And then I say:
>>
>> UPDATE test set A = 1 where C = baz
>>
>> I have updated two rows because there is no primary key to identify the
>> differe
On 12/07/2017 02:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> A B C
> foo,bar,baz
> foo,bar,baz
>
> And then I say:
>
> UPDATE test set A = 1 where C = baz
>
> I have updated two rows because there is no primary key to identify the
> differences. Both of those rows should be updated and thus replicated
On 12/07/2017 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
No it won't, it will update only one row, it does not try to find
multiple matching rows.
Good, because that's exactly what it should do. I mean, if you have
on the master two tuples that are identi
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> No it won't, it will update only one row, it does not try to find
> multiple matching rows.
Good, because that's exactly what it should do. I mean, if you have
on the master two tuples that are identical, and you update one of
them, then the
On 07/12/17 15:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 05:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row?
>> It means that for example if an update record is produced, the entire
>> row is included in the record as the key.
>
> Thanks Pe
On Thursday, December 7, 2017, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/17 19:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row?
>
> It means that for example if an update record is produced, the entire
> row is inc
On 7 December 2017 at 22:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> The confusion I have is what if we have two rows that are identical and
> now that I think about it we would just update both rows, yes? That would
> make sense because it would produce two updated rows.
>
>
I expect so, but honestly, maybe
On 12/07/2017 05:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row?
It means that for example if an update record is produced, the entire
row is included in the record as the key.
Thanks Peter, Craig also responded,
The confusion I have is wha
On 12/6/17 19:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -Hackers,
>
> In the docs it says:
>
> "
> If the table does not have any suitable key, then it can be set to
> replica identity“full”, which means the entire row becomes the key.
>
> "
>
> How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on
-Hackers,
In the docs it says:
"
If the table does not have any suitable key, then it can be set to
replica identity“full”, which means the entire row becomes the key.
"
How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row?
Thanks,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the
16 matches
Mail list logo
