| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |
| Date: | 2024-06-05 13:59:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vqRi0kazq0Kh75CP79NFK+4QGUcKD6Eavu37zqPwLmAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Can you share the use case of "earliest_timestamp_wins" resolution
> method? It seems after the initial update on the local node, it will
> never allow remote update to succeed which sounds a bit odd. Jan has
> shared this and similar concerns about this resolution method, so I
> have added him to the email as well.
>
I can not think of a use case exactly in this context but it's very
common to have such a use case while designing a distributed
application with multiple clients. For example, when we are doing git
push concurrently from multiple clients it is expected that the
earliest commit wins.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-06-05 14:04:29 | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-06-05 13:58:45 | Re: ResourceOwner refactoring |