On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@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
