> On Apr 21, 2026, at 14:09, Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Apr 20, 2026, at 22:52, Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm just thinking if it's worth a separate error message. >>> RelationGetIndexList() just ignores the deferrable PK >>> >>> if (replident == REPLICA_IDENTITY_DEFAULT && OidIsValid(pkeyIndex) && >>> !pkdeferrable) >>> relation->rd_replidindex = pkeyIndex; >>> >>> and if there's no other suitable index, the result is that there is no >>> identity index for the table. So the change attached here should be >>> consistent >>> with this approach. > >> Thanks for your review. I guess you read the v1 patch. In v2, I have >> switched to use GetRelationIdentityOrPK() that Zhijie suggested, which has >> covered RelationGetIndexList() and all checks, so that code is simplified, >> and there is no longer a separate error message. > > Yes, this looks like the best approach. Sorry for missing v2. >
Thanks for your reviewing and confirming. Rebased to v4 as the CF reported a conflict. Best regards, -- Chao Li (Evan) HighGo Software Co., Ltd. https://www.highgo.com/
v4-0001-Reject-deferrable-primary-key-fallback-in-REPACK-.patch
Description: Binary data
