On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But this syntax gives you flexibility, so we can also
> > > start with a simple implementation.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I also think so. BTW, what do you think of providing extra
> > flexibility of giving other options like 'operation', 'rel' along with
> > xid? I think such options could be useful for large transactions that
> > operate on multiple tables as it is quite possible that only a
> > particular operation from the entire transaction is the cause of
> > failure. Now, on one side, we can argue that skipping the entire
> > transaction is better from the consistency point of view but I think
> > it is already possible that we just skip a particular update/delete
> > (if the corresponding tuple doesn't exist on the subscriber). For the
> > sake of simplicity, we can just allow providing xid at this stage and
> > then extend it later as required but I am not very sure of that point.
>
> +1
>
> Skipping a whole transaction by specifying xid would be a good start.
>
Okay, that sounds reasonable, so let's do that for now.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.