Quick Links

• Community
• Contributors
• Mailing Lists
• IRC
• Local User Groups
• Events
• International Sites

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)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'.

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?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.