On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > Okay, got it now. I have no strong opinion here. I am okay with both. > But since it was originally added by other thread, so it will be good > to know the respective author's opinion as well. >
v15 has the above "SUGGESTED" order of conflict_type. We can update it if the original thread's author or others have different preferences. Thanks, Nisha
