On 2015-12-15 13:46:29 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I don't think that approach alone is good enough. It might be ok for
> selective replication where the replication is driven by tables anyway, but
> in general and especially for failover it's not good enough to tell user
> that we handle some sequences and they have to fix the rest manually.
I think it solves roughly 80-90% of all usages of sequences. That's a
significant improvement over the status quo.
I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's applicable to 9.4, and might
be good enough initially. I'm not arguing against adding sequence
> That's not much different than fixing them all in practice as you
> script it anyway.
If you can easily script it, it's just the same type (sequences owned by
a single column), everything else starts to be a bit more complicated anyway.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: