Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated please. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
yes, that could break replication. It is recommended that you make your
second index non-unique. The reason is that for conflict resolution there
must only be one possible unique key that can be used and can create
(potentially) a duplicate key on insert.
…On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 6:11 PM iamjrock ***@***.***> wrote:
Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated please.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/orgs/pgEdge/discussions/52#discussioncomment-7516183>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMWOHUVXJI6UO6YARLCY63YDQGSNAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6UCD5BWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM3TKMJWGE4DG>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Answer selected by
iamjrock
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I have read about this limitation in the documentation here and I'd like to test my understanding with an example please.
If I'm using multi-active replication and my table structure is as follows....
...with these 2 indexes...
...then this can break replication.
Correct?
If I've understood this correctly, then that would seem to make multi-active replication untenable for many use cases. Are there any workarounds to this? Something like EDB's conflict triggers etc?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions