On 2015-12-15 13:51, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-12-15 13:46:29 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I don't think that approach alone is good enough. It might be ok for
selective replication where the replication is driven by tables anyway, but
in general and especially for failover it's not good enough to tell user
that we handle some sequences and they have to fix the rest manually.
I think it solves roughly 80-90% of all usages of sequences. That's a
significant improvement over the status quo.
I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's applicable to 9.4, and might
be good enough initially.
And I am saying that I think more can and should be done even for 9.4/5.
That's not much different than fixing them all in practice as you
script it anyway.
If you can easily script it, it's just the same type (sequences owned by
a single column), everything else starts to be a bit more complicated anyway.
Well, there is some difference between scripting it for general use-case
and scripting it with domain knowledge, but I see what you mean.
--
Petr Jelinek 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
