MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEoWx2mMorbMwjKbT4YCsjDyL3r9Mp+z0bbK57VZ+OkJTgJQVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+UL6wVDNzkpHjA7RVLD_8AkrP2tu+RvQ2h5AUjyEe+-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ABD7727-CD22-4112-A186-0E788EE78109@gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-ucvk8JOiLvjii6VXar6nYJvCQDgzp8_4v55yweUmzdzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <23A24BFF-18A7-4FE9-AAFA-13E1AA207DD0@gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KzjxO-qWjWSox6e6AWH4FVU5ZPEgeZ+na=eyov7umutg@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4A3A4D7-2F51-4F0D-9FDE-95E9C318148E@gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB16907E1C68EA6EBADCE54ABBE94ABA@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <a9da608f-24be-4213-a712-8592852d37f1@app.fastmail.com>
 <CA+FXcm-YZXJpc6E7XEDTv9Yaic=U7Dwnjj4znxJ4gCxUZMcXww@mail.gmail.com>
 <19dac243-1f46-4720-bdec-bf0f851d03b9@app.fastmail.com>
 <875BBCC0-CF08-4136-8E9E-F03DF75C3A11@gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uAHiwssGCgE54zHgDPPhV4h+O5aeM03D-go8EjY1dNPCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6BD39478-8F32-48BD-9595-678E5B4BEE8C@gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uD7trdR4bMK1Xxj=mTbiJNty1mMeMprojz-fN1SH_kGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJpy0uD7trdR4bMK1Xxj=mTbiJNty1mMeMprojz-fN1SH_kGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:19:05 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJpy0uDiKfNfXc1iYigb3DKKjrE6LNzQZzdXhN+BZKeevLq7DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Improve logical replication usability when tables lack primary
 keys
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>, GRANT ZHOU <grantzhou@gmail.com>,
	"houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uDiKfNfXc1iYigb3DKKjrE6LNzQZzdXhN%2BBZKeevLq7DA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On thinking more about the initial design with a GUC-based approach, I
believe we already have a similar precedent where both a GUC and a
table/column-level property coexist. For example, the
default_toast_compression GUC allows setting a default compression
method globally, while users can still override it at the column level
during CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE. A similar approach could work in
our case as well.

Regarding the publication-level property, apart from the potential
data-integrity issues discussed earlier, I also have another concern.
If we introduce a publication-level fallback, we would effectively be
deciding what gets logged in WAL for a particular table (i.e., whether
to log REPLICA IDENTITY FULL) based on a publication parameter. This
does not seem quite right to me. Shouldn't WAL logging typically be
independent of publication configuration? Or do we already have a case
where WAL logging behavior depends on publication-level properties?

Thanks,
Shveta