On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 03:19:55 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The idea that logical rep is some kind of useful end goal in itself is > > slightly misleading. If the thought is to block multi-master > > completely on that basis, that would be a shame. Logical rep is the > > mechanism for implementing multi-master. > > If you're saying that single-master logical replication isn't useful, > I disagree. Of course, having both single-master and multi-master > replication together is even more useful. But I think getting even > single-master logical replication working well in a single release > cycle is going to be a job and a half. Thinking that we're going to > get MMR in one release is not realistic. The only way to make it > realistic is to put MMR ahead of every other goal that people have for > logical replication, including robustness and stability. It's > entirely premature to be designing features for MMR when we don't even > have the design for SMR nailed down yet. And that's even assuming we > EVER want MMR in core, which has not even really been argued, let > alone agreed. I agree it has not been agreed uppon, but I certainly would consider submitting a prototype implementing it an argument for doing it ;)
Andres -- Andres Freund 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
