On Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:46 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 23.05.24 08:36, shveta malik wrote: > > Conflict Resolution > > ---------------- > > a) latest_timestamp_wins: The change with later commit timestamp > wins. > > b) earliest_timestamp_wins: The change with earlier commit timestamp > wins. > > c) apply: Always apply the remote change. > > d) skip: Remote change is skipped. > > e) error: Error out on conflict. Replication is stopped, manual > > action is needed. > > You might be aware of pglogical, which has similar conflict resolution modes, > but they appear to be spelled a bit different. It might be worth reviewing > this, > so that we don't unnecessarily introduce differences.
Right. Some of the proposed resolution names are different from pglogical's while the functionalities are the same. The following is the comparison with pglogical: latest_timestamp_wins(proposal) - last_update_wins(pglogical) earliest_timestamp_wins(proposal) - first_update_wins(pglogical) apply(proposal) - apply_remote(pglogical) skip(proposal) - keep_local(pglogical) I personally think the pglogical's names read more naturally. But others may have different opinions on this. > > https://github.com/2ndquadrant/pglogical?tab=readme-ov-file#conflicts > > There might also be other inspiration to be found related to this in pglogical > documentation or code. Another difference is that we allow users to specify different resolutions for different conflicts, while pglogical allows specifying one resolution for all conflict. I think the proposed approach offers more flexibility to users, which seems more favorable to me. Best Regards, Hou zj
