On Monday, August 26, 2024 6:36 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of > > > > the conflict logging should say that the displayed value might be > > > > truncated? > > > > > > > > > > I updated the patch to mention this and pushed it. > > > > > > > Peter Smith mentioned to me off-list that the names of conflict types > > 'update_differ' and 'delete_differ' are not intuitive as compared to > > all other conflict types like insert_exists, update_missing, etc. The > > other alternative that comes to mind for those conflicts is to name > > them as 'update_origin_differ'/''delete_origin_differ'. > > +1 on 'update_origin_differ'/''delete_origin_differ'. Gives more clarity.
+1 > > > The description in docs for 'update_differ' is as follows: Updating a > > row that was previously modified by another origin. Note that this > > conflict can only be detected when track_commit_timestamp is enabled > > on the subscriber. Currently, the update is always applied regardless > > of the origin of the local row. > > > > Does anyone else have any thoughts on the naming of these conflicts? Best Regards, Hou zj
