On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 11:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > It's hard to picture what the future options might be like. Someone > had > an idea years ago (you even?) to add more information like table names > or primary keys to the WAL records, to make it easier to scrape > information from the WAL for 3rd party replication solutions. Like > feeding a slony replica from the WAL. Or maybe we'd want to fold > full_page_writes to the new GUC.
Yeh, lots of ideas for adding value to WAL. WAL can be considered a transport solution with many potential uses and properties. I haven't ever suggested adding something that would only be available to 3rd party solutions, perhaps that information was garbled. Yes, I did suggest that Slony might use a WAL transport in future, as an option. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
