On Monday, October 15, 2012 04:54:20 AM Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > > <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > > IMHO that's a good thing, and I'd hope this new logical replication to > > live outside core as well, as much as possible. But whether or not > > something is in core is just a political decision, not a reason to > > implement something new. > > > > If the only meaningful advantage is reducing the amount of WAL written, I > > can't help thinking that we should just try to address that in the > > existing solutions, even if it seems "easy to solve at a first glance, > > but a solution not using a normal transactional table for its log/queue > > has to solve a lot of problems", as the document says. Sorry to be a > > naysayer, but I'm pretty scared of all the new code and complexity these > > patches bring into core.
> I do not personally believe that a WAL decoding solution adequate to > drive logical replication can live outside of core, at least not > unless core exposes a whole lot more interface than we do now, and > probably not even then. Even if it could, I don't see the case for > making every replication solution reinvent that wheel. It's a big > wheel to be reinventing, and everyone needs pretty much the same > thing. Unsurprisingly I aggree. > That having been said, I have to agree that the people working on this > project seem to be wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to the > difficulty of implementing a full-fledged solution in core. That very well might be true. Sometimes rose-colored glasses can be quite productive in getting something started... Note at this point were only want wal decoding, background workers and related things to get integrated... Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
