-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
add on conflict clause in create table statement #1860
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This pull request is automatically being deployed by Amplify Hosting (learn more). |
--- | ||
id: multiple-sink-into-table | ||
slug: /multiple-sink-into-table | ||
title: multiple-sink-into-table |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
title: multiple-sink-into-table | |
title: Multiple Sink into table |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Besides, regarding of terminology, how about call it "Table sink" among our docs? We usually say "sink into table" but this sounds like a verb word rather than noun.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We've already used "sink" as a verb in almost all sink docs 😂
Co-authored-by: Eric Fu <eric@singularity-data.com>
We may consider tagging it a beta feature if we are not much confident about the design. |
Any updates? 👀 We have received some feature requests from customers and community. Better to make it visible in our docs. |
Excluding the contentious "version column" part, I believe the remainder has been released in version 1.9. PTAL @neverchanje |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did the language review and LGTM now
Info
It is NOT implemented yet and just to define the behavior and confirm the requirement with users before implementation
Description
Notes
Related code PR
Related doc issue
Resolves [ Provide a link to the relevant doc issue here, if applicable. ]
For reviewers
Preview
Key points
Before merging
I have checked the doc site preview, and the updated parts look good.
I have acquired the approval from the owner (and optionally the reviewers) of the code PR and at least one tech writer (
CharlieSYH
,emile-00
, &hengm3467
).