From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication |
Date: | 2024-08-18 08:49:37 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB5716CDAF0FB045405AF5F73894832@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, August 16, 2024 2:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > --------------------
> >
> > One more comment:
> >
> > 5)
> > For insert/update_exists, the sequence is:
> > Key .. ; existing local tuple .. ; remote tuple ...
> >
> > For rest of the conflicts, sequence is:
> > Existing local tuple .. ; remote tuple .. ; replica identity ..
> >
> > Is it intentional? Shall the 'Key' or 'Replica Identity' be the first
> > one to come in all conflicts?
> >
>
> This is worth considering but Replica Identity signifies the old tuple values,
> that is why it is probably kept at the end.
Right. I personally think the current position is ok.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-08-18 08:56:52 | RE: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication |
Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-08-18 08:49:12 | RE: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication |