From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Alex Williams <valenceshell@protonmail.com>,
        "pgsql-sql@postgresql.org" <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump compatibility level / use create view instead of create
 table/rule
In-reply-to: <20191026205630.cubjcxgs2rhke7xa@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <NFqxoEi7-8Rw9OW0f-GwHcjvS2I4YQXov4g9OoWv3i7lVOZdLWkAWl9jQQqwEaUq6WV0vdobromhW82e8y5I0_59yZTXcZnXsrmFuldlmZc=@protonmail.com>
 <30565.1570597261@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <KAJrgQ84Kmh-_zwP7MtMPVbx32uE78hQaiAhxpdylcsiISMqRSL3UUGiJQZlbpkT4L5R6BMj-cCpBqUXK1R34HgUSq1Y3I8QjMpLBACQKDo=@protonmail.com>
 <MzQZmmoeor-gQY3YlRIVMCXpdWHT8oohKzczWGjPrm4tvY8o8S74QYm_kOcKMztQvME5vhi6MQy8eVZYxtRPAE9uSe30gjTdr2MOYy-L6wE=@protonmail.com>
 <18dWrRFcmR7qHhsVTvYfGuRT8Tx5LijYQ72SeMWaya_0FiBkS5BFiYTa47R5WVTlADzXAqI85sZgkKPFVdJP2UWsUwJty3KuZ4eZvlVXO-I=@protonmail.com>
 <17815.1570661198@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <-pa2tdKbasT5nWrYgCtvhKtMDyPIboaoG53ZSPb0MfCvzMUaVJDgQddN1ve-XLllFBKmQ8kGJ7InqBcYwq5CJY2DnLI4HVWTHyYx8wwBTtM=@protonmail.com>
 <1095.1570720814@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20191026205630.cubjcxgs2rhke7xa@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sat, 26 Oct 2019 13:56:30 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25498.1572124689.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 17:18:09 -0400
Message-ID: <25499.1572124689@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-10-10 11:20:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason we get "REPLICA IDENTITY NOTHING" is that a view's relreplident
>> is set to 'n' not 'd', which might not have been a great choice.

> Hm, yea. I wonder if we should add a REPLICA_IDENTITY_INVALID or such,
> for non relation relkinds?  I'm mildly inclined to think that setting it
> to REPLICA_IDENTITY_DEFAULT is at least as confusing as
> REPLICA_IDENTITY_DEFAULT...

Yeah, I'd be for that in HEAD probably.  But of course we can't change
the 9.x branches like that.

>> This is fixed in v10 and up thanks to d8c05aff5.  I was hesitant to
>> back-patch that at the time, but now that it's survived in the field
>> for a couple years, I think a good case could be made for doing so.

> +1

Just finishing up the back-patch now.

			regards, tom lane