On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > For example, you said that "MM replication alone is not a solution for > large data or the general case". Why is that? Is the goal of your work > really to do logical replciation, which allows for major version > upgrades? Is that the defining feature?
TBH, I don't think MM replication belongs in the database at all. Ditto any replication solution that implements 'eventual consistency' such that after the fact conflict resolution is required. In an SQL database, when a transaction commits, it should remain so. It belongs in the application layer. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
