On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > > > > 13. General - ordering of conflict_type. > > > > nit - Instead of just some apparent random order, let's put each > > insert/update/delete conflict type in alphabetical order, so at least > > users can find them where they would expect to find them. > > This ordering was decided while implementing the 'conflict-detection > and logging' patch and thus perhaps should be maintained as same. The > ordering is insert, update and delete (different variants of these). > Please see a comment on it in [1] (comment #2). > > [1]:https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB569224262F44875973FAF344F5B22%40TYAPR01MB5692.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com >
+1 for order insert/update/delete. My issue was only about the order *within* each of those variants. e.g. I think it should be alphabetical: CURRENT insert_exists update_origin_differs update_exists update_missing delete_origin_differs delete_missing SUGGESTED insert_exists update_exists update_missing update_origin_differs delete_missing delete_origin_differs > > > ~~~ > > > > 14. > > 99. General - ordering of conflict_resolver > > > > nit - ditto. Let's name these in alphabetical order. IMO it makes more > > sense than the current random ordering. > > > > I feel ordering of resolvers should be same as that of conflict > types, i.e. resolvers of insert variants first, then update variants, > then delete variants. But would like to know what others think on > this. > Resolvers in v14 were documented in this random order: error skip apply_remote keep_local apply_or_skip apply_or_error Some of these are resolvers for different conflicts. How can you order these as "resolvers for insert" followed by "resolvers for update" followed by "resolvers for delete" without it all still appearing in random order? ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
