Open shaunagm opened 1 year ago
Per this thread, we want to add padding as an argument to the copy
method in our connectors, not sure the priority of it though. @elyse-weiss, thoughts on priority?
Per this thread, we want to add padding as an argument to the
copy
method in our connectors, not sure the priority of it though. @elyse-weiss, thoughts on priority?
I have found it to be very helpful to ensuring you don't get errors on future runs that column widths are not wide enough. I don't have enough of an idea around capacity though, and if it has to be pushed down the road, I think we'll all survive.
We're hoping to help other connectors (especially the BigQuery connector) get closer to feature parity with the RedShift connector. Here's a list of features RedShift has that we'd like other connectors to have, ordered by priority.
High Priority
pg_tables
table in Redshift. Functionally, I think we only need schemaname and tablename, but BigQuery may want to also surface project name.pg_views
table in Redshift. Functionally, I think we only need schemanam, viewname, and view definition, but BigQuery may want to also surface project name.Medium Priority
Low Priority
PRs addressing this issue will likely only add a feature or two at a time. That's totally ok. :) Also feel free to comment if you have a different prioritization. This list comes via @elyse-weiss and represents internal TMC priorities but we are happy to accommodate community needs as well.