Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-11-08 11:52:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Adding a similar
>> level of burden to support a feature with a narrow use-case seems like
>> a nonstarter from here.
> I don't understand this statement. In my experience the lack of a usable
> replication solution that allows temporary tables and major version
> differences is one of the most, if not *the* most, frequent criticisms
> of postgres I hear. How is this a narrow use case?
[ shrug... ] I don't personally give a damn about logical replication,
especially not logical replication implemented in this fashion. It looks
large and rickety (ie full of opportunities for bugs) and I would never
trust data I cared about to it.
Or in short: AFAICS you're not building the next WAL-shipping replication
solution, you're building the next Slony, and Slony never has and never
will be more than a niche use-case. Putting half of it into core wouldn't
fix that, it would just put a lot more maintenance burden on core
developers. Core developers are entitled to push back on such proposals.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
