On 3/31/23 03:04, shiy.fnst@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