On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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? If it would fail, does this > limit the idea that logical replication allows major version-different > replication? Marking this patch as "Returned with feedback". Even with the more-fundamental arguments of putting such replication solution in-core or not (I am skeptical as well btw), on a code-base-discussion-only I don't think that this patch is acceptable as-is without more structure of jsonb to do on-memory manipulation of containers (aka remove ObjTree stuff). Regards, -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
