On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:14:26PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 03:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the
> > >pglogical_output  module (which is obviously needed for this to
> > >compile).
> > This is fantastic! However, history presents itself here and
> > PostgreSQL in the past has not "blessed" a single solution for
> > Replication. Obviously that changed a bit with streaming replication
> > but this is a bit different than that. As I understand it, PgLogical
> > is Logical Replication (similar to Slony and Londiste). I wouldn't
> > be surprised (although I don't know) if Slony were to start using
> > some of the pglogical_output module features in the future.
> > If we were to accept PgLogical into core, it will become the default
> > blessed solution for PostgreSQL. While that is great in some ways
> > it is a different direction than the project has taken in the past.
> > Is this what we want to do?
> Replying late here, but I think with binary replication, we decided
> that, assuming you were happy with the features provided, our streaming
> binary replication solution was going to be the best and recommended way
> of doing it.
> I don't think we ever had that feeling with Slony or Londiste in that
> there were so many limitations and so many different ways of
> implementing logical replication that we never recommended a best way.
> So, the question is, do we feel that PgLogical is best and recommended
> way to do logical replication. If it is, then having it in core makes
DDL support is what it's missed for now.
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Roman grave inscription +
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
> To make changes to your subscription: