Sorry that I never replied. I am fine with the current proposal :) -Matthias
On 7/12/19 5:09 AM, Adam Bellemare wrote: > @Matthias J. Sax <mailto:matth...@confluent.io> - Thoughts on the > semantics of simply leaving it as-is, with the extra tombstones? As John > put it: "It may be unnecessary to "delete" a > non-existant record from a view, but it's never incorrect." > > It may not be ideal, but the complexity of eliminating it seems to be > high and frankly I don't have any better ideas at the moment. > > Unless you strongly object, I think we'll have to move forward with it > as-is. There is still time to come up with another solution before I > *hopefully* get this into 2.4, but in the meantime I'll look to continue > on otherwise. > > Adam > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:57 AM Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com > <mailto:jan.filip...@trivago.com>> wrote: > > > > On 10.07.2019 06:25, Adam Bellemare wrote: > > In my experience (obviously empirical) it seems that many people > just want > > the ability to join on foreign keys for the sake of handling all the > > relational data in their event streams and extra tombstones don't > matter at > > all. This has been my own experience from our usage of our internal > > implementation at my company, and that of many others who have > reached out > > to me. > > backing this. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
