Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(schema-engine): prepare skeleton for implicit many-to-many table logical replication on Postgres #5051

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jkomyno
Copy link
Contributor

@jkomyno jkomyno commented Nov 22, 2024

DRAFT, expect failures and incomplete code

This PR:

@jkomyno jkomyno requested a review from a team as a code owner November 22, 2024 12:47
@jkomyno jkomyno requested review from aqrln and removed request for a team November 22, 2024 12:47
@jkomyno jkomyno self-assigned this Nov 22, 2024
Comment on lines +411 to +414
let refinement_str = match table.is_implicit_m2m() {
true => "-- Implicitly many-to-many\n",
false => "",
};
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is debug-only stuff

Copy link
Contributor

WASM Query Engine file Size

Engine This PR Base branch Diff
Postgres 2.038MiB 2.038MiB 0.000B
Postgres (gzip) 818.839KiB 818.840KiB -1.000B
Mysql 2.001MiB 2.001MiB 0.000B
Mysql (gzip) 804.595KiB 804.595KiB 0.000B
Sqlite 1.900MiB 1.900MiB 0.000B
Sqlite (gzip) 765.014KiB 765.015KiB -1.000B

Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Nov 22, 2024

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5051 will not alter performance

Comparing feat/implicit-m2m-support-logical-replication (0b7f0d8) with main (90c6eb3)

Summary

✅ 11 untouched benchmarks

@@ -657,6 +663,7 @@ pub(crate) enum Circumstances {
IsCockroachDb,
CockroachWithPostgresNativeTypes, // FIXME: we should really break and remove this
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmm, unrelated to this pr but: we did break this case in Prisma 5 already, we can probably just remove it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Prisma join tables unable to be replicated by default
2 participants