On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> So, I am currently wondering about how to store the "old" tuple, based
> on this. Currently it is stored using the TupleDesc of the index the old
> tuple is based on. But if we want to allow transporting the entire tuple
> that obviously can
Hi,
On 2013-10-22 16:07:16 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-21 20:16:29 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Current draft is:
> > ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING|FULL|DEFAULT
> > ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX ...;
> >
> > which leaves the door open for
> >
> > ALTER T
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-21 20:16:29 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2013-10-18 20:50:58 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > How about modifying the selection to go from:
>> > * all rows if ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING|FULL;
>> > * index chosen
On 2013-10-18 20:50:58 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> How about modifying the selection to go from:
> * all rows if ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING|FULL;
> * index chosen by ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY USING indexname
> * [later, maybe] ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY (cola, colb)
Cu
On 10/21/2013 05:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-21 16:40:43 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> On 10/18/2013 08:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-18 08:11:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> ...
2. If that seems too complicated, how about just logging the whole old
tuple for ve
On 2013-10-21 11:14:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I have a hard time to understand why you dislike it so much. Think of a
> > big schema where you want to add auditing via changeset
> > extraction. Because of problems with reindexing prima
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I have a hard time to understand why you dislike it so much. Think of a
> big schema where you want to add auditing via changeset
> extraction. Because of problems with reindexing primary key you've just
> used candidate keys so far. Why shou
On 2013-10-21 16:40:43 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 08:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-10-18 08:11:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> ...
> >> 2. If that seems too complicated, how about just logging the whole old
> >> tuple for version 1?
> > I think that'd make the patch much l
On 10/18/2013 08:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-18 08:11:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
...
>> 2. If that seems too complicated, how about just logging the whole old
>> tuple for version 1?
> I think that'd make the patch much less useful because it bloats WAL
> unnecessarily for the primar
On 2013-10-21 09:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > How about modifying the selection to go from:
> > * all rows if ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING|FULL;
> > * index chosen by ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY USING indexname
> > * [
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> How about modifying the selection to go from:
> * all rows if ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING|FULL;
> * index chosen by ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY USING indexname
> * [later, maybe] ALTER TABLE ... REPLICA IDENTITY (cola, colb)
On 2013-10-18 08:11:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Attached you can find version 6.4 of the patchset:
>
> So I'm still unhappy with the arbitrary logic in what's now patch 1
> for choosing the candidate key. On another thread, someone men
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Attached you can find version 6.4 of the patchset:
>
> So I'm still unhappy with the arbitrary logic in what's now patch 1
> for choosing the candidate key. On another thread, someone m
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Attached you can find version 6.4 of the patchset:
So I'm still unhappy with the arbitrary logic in what's now patch 1
for choosing the candidate key. On another thread, someone mentioned
that they might want the entire old tuple, and that
14 matches
Mail list logo
