On 3/31/23 03:04, shiy.f...@fujitsu.com wrote: > I noticed that a similar problem has been discussed in this thread, see [1] > [2] > [3] [4].
Ah, thank you. I didn't go far back enough in the thread... > It seems complicated to fix it if we want to automatically skip tables > that have been synchronized previously by code I agree, this is looking very complex. I need to read through the examples you sent more closely. > and this may overkill in some > cases (e.g. The target table in subscriber is not a partitioned table, and the > user want to synchronize all data in the partitioned table from the > publisher). Hm. It seems like the setup process doesn't really capture the user's intent. There are just so many things that they could be theoretically trying to do. > Besides, it seems not a common case. So I'm not sure we should fix it. Maybe > we > can just add some documentation for it as Peter mentioned. I think we should absolutely document the pitfalls here. (I'm still trying to figure out what they are, though, so I don't have any concrete suggestions yet...) Thanks! --Jacob
