On Monday, August 26, 2024 6:36 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you think the documentation for the 'column_value' parameter of
> > > > the conflict logging should say that the displayed value might be
> > > > truncated?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I updated the patch to mention this and pushed it.
> > >
> >
> > Peter Smith mentioned to me off-list that the names of conflict types
> > 'update_differ' and 'delete_differ' are not intuitive as compared to
> > all other conflict types like insert_exists, update_missing, etc. The
> > other alternative that comes to mind for those conflicts is to name
> > them as 'update_origin_differ'/''delete_origin_differ'.
>
> +1 on 'update_origin_differ'/''delete_origin_differ'. Gives more clarity.
+1
>
> > The description in docs for 'update_differ' is as follows: Updating a
> > row that was previously modified by another origin. Note that this
> > conflict can only be detected when track_commit_timestamp is enabled
> > on the subscriber. Currently, the update is always applied regardless
> > of the origin of the local row.
> >
> > Does anyone else have any thoughts on the naming of these conflicts?
Best Regards,
Hou zj
