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

IMPORT, schema changes don't use protected ts #16481

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 13, 2023

Conversation

rmloveland
Copy link
Contributor

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Mar 13, 2023

Netlify Preview

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 8326c9e
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/cockroachdb-docs/deploys/640f32b174fcaf0008244bfc
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-16481--cockroachdb-docs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

@rmloveland
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @adityamaru do you mind taking a look at this docs change re: IMPORT and protected timestamps?

Copy link

@adityamaru adityamaru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@rmloveland rmloveland merged commit bc028c8 into master Apr 13, 2023
@rmloveland rmloveland deleted the 20230313-DOC-5193-protected-timestamps branch April 13, 2023 14:22
@stevendanna
Copy link
Contributor

I believe some parts of schema changes in 23.1 do technically use protected timestamps.

@adityamaru
Copy link

🤦 I found all usages of Protect when reviewing this but I forgot that they switched over to using a different jobs PTS manager. Apologies @rmloveland I believe backfill schema changes still use PTS records.

@rmloveland
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @stevendanna and @adityamaru for pointing this out!

I have filed DOC-7465 to update this to add back schema changes to the list of things that use protected ts

@stevendanna do you think simply adding the link back to the list (that was removed in this PR) would suffice?

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.

3 participants