On 2016-04-05 15:51:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > Review and test responses have been pretty underwhelming for pglogical, and > quite a bit seem to have boiled down to "this should live as an extension, > we don't need it in core". It often feels like we can't win: if we seek to > get it into core we're told it's not wanted/needed, but if we try to focus > on solving issues in core to make it work better and let it live as an > extension we're told we shouldn't bother until it's in core.
I think partially that's because it's hard to see the goal from those threads. Leading the intro email with "after applying use these three steps to replicate a database" or something might help. I also want to add that so far, to my knowledge, the feedback hasn't fully been addressed. It's a bit hard to see progress at that pace. > Do you want to get a logical replication system into core that doesn't work > properly with lots of the other features in PostgreSQL? That's historically > not how we've done things here, and sometimes massive amounts of work have > been required to make new feature X work with obscure/awkward existing > feature Y. I think that's a strawman. We have done actual iterative development where the basic feature came at an early stage a lot of times. Most impressively FDWs. And even if we decide that feature X has to be supported, having an otherwise close-to-committable patch series, goes a *LONG* way to motivate people. > Still, I don't really want to block work on making logical decoding more > real-world usable on inclusion of a logical replication system for > PostgreSQL, especially one that'll be lucky to get in for 9.7 at the > earliest. My impression is that unless you *NOW* press very hard to get it into core, there's no way to get it into 9.7. Unless you start aggressively at some point, it'll never get in. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers