-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
Feature Request: make VDiff support multi-tenant migrations #16305
Labels
Milestone
Comments
mcrauwel
added
Needs Triage
This issue needs to be correctly labelled and triaged
Type: Feature
labels
Jul 1, 2024
mattlord
added
Type: Bug
and removed
Needs Triage
This issue needs to be correctly labelled and triaged
labels
Jul 1, 2024
for completeness: the
|
Here's a test case:
That will show the extra row on the target:
|
5 tasks
5 tasks
deepthi
added
Type: Enhancement
Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
and removed
Type: Feature
labels
Jul 2, 2024
@mcrauwel as noted in the linked PR, you can in fact run VDiff properly on a tenant-based migration by providing the correct |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature Description
In #15403 we've implemented multi-tenant migrations and so far this is working very good. We now ran into an issue with vdiff. On one of our multi-tenant workflow we started a VDiff and that is reporting a bunch of extra rows in the target table (the rows from the other tenants outside of this workflow that have already been migrated).
Example:
The workflow definition contains the
tenant_id
that is being worked on, so vdiff should add aWHERE <tenant_id_field> = <tenant_id>
filter clause to the target-side SELECT-query.Use Case(s)
Running vdiff on any multi-tenant migration will be affected by this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: