On 2013-10-18 14:16:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/18/2013 01:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-10-18 13:16:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I thought changeset extraction was the only thing going into core? What > >> else do we need? > > > > Well, I personally want more in core mid/long term, but anyway. > > I've lost track of the plan, then. > > Hmmm ... we need replication of DDL commands, no? > > > Without released, proven and stable logical in-core replication > > technology using this, I don't see why repmgr or something related would > > need/want to change? > > Repmgr is designed to manage binary replication, not perform it.
Obviously. > What will likely change first is Slony and Bucardo, who have a strong > interest in dumping triggers and queues. But I don't understand what that has to do with recovery.conf and breakage around it. > A contrib module which did the > simplest implementation -- that is, whole-database M-S replication -- > would also be a good idea, especially since it would provide an example > of how to build your own. > > But I'd be wary of going beyond that in core, because you very quickly > get into the territory of trying to satisfy multiple exclusive > use-cases. Let's focus on providing a really good API which enables > people to build their own tools. We'll see. I am certain we'll have many discussions about the bits and pieces you need to build a great replication solution (of which we imo don't have any yet). Greetings, Andres Freund -- 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
