Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.6

2013-11-13 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-12 19:24:39 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-11-12 13:18:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund > > wrote: > > > Completely agreed. As evidenced by the fact that the current change > > > doesn't update all relevant comments & code. I wonde

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.6

2013-11-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-12 13:18:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > Completely agreed. As evidenced by the fact that the current change > > doesn't update all relevant comments & code. I wonder if we shouldn't > > leave the function the current way and

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.6

2013-11-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Completely agreed. As evidenced by the fact that the current change > doesn't update all relevant comments & code. I wonder if we shouldn't > leave the function the current way and just add a new function for the > new behaviour. > The hard

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.6

2013-11-12 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2013-11-12 12:13:54 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > [ updated patch-set ] > > I'm pretty happy with what's now patch #1, f/k/a known as patch #3, > and probably somewhere else in the set before that. At any rate, I > refer to 0001-

Re: [HACKERS] logical changeset generation v6.6

2013-11-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > [ updated patch-set ] I'm pretty happy with what's now patch #1, f/k/a known as patch #3, and probably somewhere else in the set before that. At any rate, I refer to 0001-wal_decoding-Add-wal_level-logical-and-log-data-requ.patch.gz. I th