On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> What is the attraction of logical application of the WAL logs? > >> Transmitting to a server with different architecture? > > > Yes, > > > * different release > > * different encoding > > * different CPU architecture > > * (with the correct transform) a different DBMS > > The notion that the WAL logs will ever be portable across such > differences is so ... so ... well, it's barely worth laughing at.
I expect to begin discussion of how that might be achieved in a few days. I understand the starting place for your thinking, but am not deterred because I see some solutions. I feel certain you will point out some difficulties, but I think it is worth doing. Please lets start those discussions from a neutral point. If you find a real showstopper, then so be it. Sorry for the delay. Bruce was asking about why I might want that. If we can at least agree there is a use case then it helps. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
