On 2014-06-18 13:26:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > My vote is to hold off on this until we've talked about replication > identifiers and other related topics in more depth.
I really don't understand this. We're *NOT* proposing this patch as an underhanded way of preempting the discussion of whether/how replication identifiers are going to be used. We're proposing it because we currently have a need for the facility and this will reduce the number of patches we have to keep around after 9.5. And more importantly because there's several other use cases than our internal one for it. To settle one more point: I am not planning to propose BDR's generation of replication identifier names for integration. It works well enough for BDR but I think we can come up with something better for core. If I had my current knowledge two years back I'd not have chosen the current scheme. Greetings, Andres Freund -- 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
