Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:50 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:39 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:47 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> In the second patch, we can implement simple built-in resolution
> > > > > > >> strategies like apply and skip (which can be named as remote_apply and
> > > > > > >> keep_local, see [3][4] for details on these strategies) with ERROR or
> > > > > > >> LOG being the default strategy. We can allow these strategies to be
> > > > > > >> configured at the global and table level.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before we implement resolvers, we need a way to configure them. Please
> > > > > find the patch002 which attempts to implement Global Level Conflict
> > > > > Resolvers Configuration. Note that patch002 is dependent upon
> > > > > Conflict-Detection patch001 which is reviewed in another thread [1].
> > > > > I have attached patch001 here for convenience and to avoid CFBot
> > > > > failures. But please use [1] if you have any comments on patch001.
> > > > >
> > > > > New DDL commands in patch002 are:
> > > > >
> > > > > To set global resolver for given conflcit_type:
> > > > > SET CONFLICT RESOLVER 'conflict_resolver' FOR 'conflict_type'
> > > > >
> > > > > To reset to default resolver:
> > > > > RESET CONFLICT RESOLVER FOR 'conflict_type'
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does setting up resolvers have any meaning without subscriptions? I am
> > > > wondering whether we should allow to set up the resolvers at the
> > > > subscription level. One benefit is that users don't need to use a
> > > > different DDL to set up resolvers. The first patch gives a conflict
> > > > detection option at the subscription level, so it would be symmetrical
> > > > to provide a resolver at the subscription level. Yet another benefit
> > > > could be that it provides users facility to configure different
> > > > resolvers for a set of tables belonging to a particular
> > > > publication/node.
> > >
> > > There can be multiple tables included in a publication with varying
> > > business use-cases and thus may need different resolvers set, even
> > > though they all are part of the same publication.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed but this is the reason we are planning to keep resolvers at the
> > table level. Here, I am asking to set resolvers at the subscription
> > level rather than at the global level.
>
> Okay, got it. I misunderstood earlier that we want to replace table
> level resolvers with subscription ones.
> Having global configuration has one benefit that if the user has no
> requirement to set different resolvers for different subscriptions or
> tables, he may always set one global configuration and be done with
> it. OTOH, I also agree with benefits coming with subscription level
> configuration.

Setting resolvers at table-level and subscription-level sounds good to
me. DDLs for setting resolvers at subscription-level would need the
subscription name to be specified? And another question is: a
table-level resolver setting is precedent over all subscriber-level
resolver settings in the database?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com