On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:33:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2020-06-03 18:27:12 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> There *is* a need, namely to keep complexity down. This is quite >> convoluted, it's got a lot of historical baggage because of the way it >> was implemented, and it's very difficult to understand. The greatest >> motive I see is to make this easier to understand, so that it is easier >> to modify and improve in the future. > > That seems like a possibly convincing argument for not introducing the > capability, but doesn't seem strong enough to remove it. Especially not > if it was just broken as part of effectively a refactoring, as far as I > understand?
Are there any objections in fixing the issue first then? As far as I can see there is no objection to this part, like here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200603214448.GA901@alvherre.pgsql >> I don't think having a physical replication connection access catalog >> data directly is a great idea. We already have gadgets like >> IDENTIFY_SYSTEM for physical replication that can do that, and if you >> need particular settings you can use SHOW (commit d1ecd539477). If >> there was a strong need for even more than that, we can add something to >> the grammar. > > Those special case things are a bad idea, and we shouldn't introduce > more. It's unrealistic that we can ever make that support everything, > and since we already have to support the database connected thing, I > don't see the point. Let's continue discussing this part as well. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature