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 matching in all columns.
> b) the update didn't actually change anything. In which case the same
> row gets updated twice, but because the column values didn't change,
> that doesn't matter.
I may be misunderstanding what is said above but if I ran a test:
Publisher:
reptest=# \d foorep
Table "public.foorep"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
--------+------+-----------+----------+---------
one | text | | |
two | text | | |
Publications:
"reptestpub"
reptest=# select * from foorep;
one | two
-----+-----
c | b
c | b
c | b
(3 rows)
reptest=# update foorep set one = 'd';
UPDATE 3
reptest=# select * from foorep;
one | two
-----+-----
d | b
d | b
d | b
(3 rows)
Subscriber before Publisher update:
reptest=# select * from foorep ;
one | two
-----+-----
c | b
c | b
c | b
(3 rows)
Subscriber after Publisher update:
reptest=# select * from foorep ;
one | two
-----+-----
d | b
d | b
d | b
(3 rows)
This is the behavior I was expecting. As I said, I may have
misunderstood the responses but it is acting as I would expect.
Thanks!
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****