On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2020-Jun-04, Andres Freund wrote: > > > postgres[52656][1]=# SELECT 1; > > ┌──────────┐ > > │ ?column? │ > > ├──────────┤ > > │ 1 │ > > └──────────┘ > > (1 row) > > > > > > I am very much not in love with the way that was implemented, but it's > > there, and it's used as far as I know (cf tablesync.c). > > Ouch ... so they made IDENT in the replication grammar be a trigger to > enter the regular grammar. Crazy. No way to put those worms back in > the tin now, I guess. > Is that documented ? > > It is still my opinion that we should prohibit a logical replication > connection from being used to do physical replication. Horiguchi-san, > Sawada-san and Masao-san are all of the same opinion. Dave Cramer (of > the JDBC team) is not opposed to the change -- he says they're just > using it because they didn't realize they should be doing differently. I think my exact words were "I don't see this is a valid reason to keep doing something. If it is broken then fix it. Clients can deal with the change." in response to: Well, I don't really think that we can just break a behavior that > exists since 9.4 as you could break applications relying on the > existing behavior, and that's also the point of Vladimir upthread. > Which is different than not being opposed to the change. I don't see this as broken, and it's quite possible that some of our users are using it. It certainly needs to be documented Dave
