On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The bigger question is do we want to give users an option
> > > for skip_empty_streams similar to skip_empty_xacts? I would again
> > > prefer to give a separate option to the user as well. What do you
> > > think?
> >
> > Yeah, I think giving an option would be better.
>
> I think we should also think about the combinations of the
> skip_empty_xacts and skip_empty_streams. For example, if the user
> passes the skip_empty_xacts to false and skip_empty_streams to true
> then what should be the behavior, if the complete transaction
> option1: It should not print any stream_start/stream_stop and just
> print commit stream because skip_empty_xacts is false and
> skip_empty_streams is true.
> option2: It should print the stream_start message for the very first
> stream because it is the first stream if the txn and skip_empty_xacts
> is false so print it and later it will print-stream commit.
> option3: Or for the first stream we first put the BEGIN message i.e
> stream begin
> stream start
> stream stop
> stream commit
> option4: the user should not be allowed to pass skip_empty_xacts =
> false with skip_empty_streams to true. Because if the streaming mode
> is on then we can not print the xact without printing streams.
>
> What is your opinion on this?
>
I would prefer option-4 and in addition to that we can ensure that if
skip_empty_xacts = true then by default skip_empty_streams is also
true.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
