On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:18 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't deny that this can allow some additional cases than we allow
> > today but was just not sure whether users really need it. If we want
> > to go with such an option then as
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:22 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I don't deny that this can allow some additional cases than we allow
> today but was just not sure whether users really need it. If we want
> to go with such an option then as mentioned earlier, we should
> consider another proposal for subscri
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:33 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, isn't it good if we ca
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Having said that, isn't it good if we can provide a subscription
> > > (CREATE/ALTER) level option say "cascade
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 3:39 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> > Having said that, I see a different use case of such an option which
> > is related to the proposal [1] where the patch provides a truncate
> > option to truncate tables before initial sync. The cascade option
> > could be useful in that
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Having said that, isn't it good if we can provide a subscription
> > > (CREATE/ALTER) level option say "cascade
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Having said that, isn't it good if we can provide a subscription
> > (CREATE/ALTER) level option say "cascade"(similar to other options
> > such as binary, synchronous_commit, s
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:08 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Having said that, isn't it good if we can provide a subscription
> (CREATE/ALTER) level option say "cascade"(similar to other options
> such as binary, synchronous_commit, stream) default being false, when
> set to true, we send upstream
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:02 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I think you are comparing the user-exposed behavior with the internal
> code comments. The meaning of the comments is that it should not
> truncate any table on subscriber using cascade, because there might be
> some subscriber-specific relati
sh,On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:37 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In apply_handle_truncate, the following comment before
> > > ExecuteTruncateGuts s
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:59 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In apply_handle_truncate, the following comment before ExecuteTruncateGuts
> > says that it defaults to RESTRICT even if the CASCADE option has been
> > specifie
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In apply_handle_truncate, the following comment before ExecuteTruncateGuts
> says that it defaults to RESTRICT even if the CASCADE option has been
> specified in publisher's TRUNCATE command.
> /*
> * Even if we used C
Hi,
In apply_handle_truncate, the following comment before ExecuteTruncateGuts
says that it defaults to RESTRICT even if the CASCADE option has been
specified in publisher's TRUNCATE command.
/*
* Even if we used CASCADE on the upstream primary we explicitly default
* to replaying ch
13 matches
Mail list logo
