Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 05:56:00PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > 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? > > How would replicating DDL handle cases where the master and slave > servers have different major versions and the DDL is only supported by > the Postgres version on the master server?
Normally you would replicate between an older master and a newer replica, so this shouldn't be an issue. I find it unlikely that we would de-support some syntax that works in an older version: it would break pg_dump, for one thing. In other words I view cross-version replication as a mechanism to upgrade, not something that you would use permanently. Once you finish upgrading, promote the newer server and ditch the old master. > If it would fail, does this limit the idea that logical replication > allows major version-different replication? Not in my view, at least. -- Álvaro Herrera 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
