Re: [Postgres-xc-developers] Fwd: [Postgres-xc-committers] Postgres-XC branch, REL1_2_STABLE, updated. XC1_0_BETA1_PG9_1-3999-ge5466f7

[Pavan D. <pav...@gm...>]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...> wrote:

> I'd like Abbas to answer why it is practical at this point ...
>
>
Sure. I would wait for him to explain.


> From the discussion of the thread, I understand that it is highly
> recommended to have a primary key in replicated tables.   This will be
> in the release note and the reference document.    Original patch from
> Mason requires a primary key, which causes some of regression test to
> fail and the short-term fix will make regression very dirty.
>
>
I am sorry, but I think data inconsistency problem should take higher
priority that passing the regression tests. The regression tests are there
to find bugs, not hide them under the carpet. Even if its must for some
reason to temporarily circumvent the problem for the regression tests, a
possible way would be to test with a patched server. But I would strongly
argue against releasing anything which has a known and a very common data
corruption bug.


> In a long run, as discussed, I believe system primary key will be a
> solution, if no primary key is defined as user column.
>
>
Yeah, that would work. It should not be very complicated too to implement.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee