On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that we'd need all of
> this stuff to make logical replication a substitute for physical
> replication as far as failover is concerned.  But I don't think that's
> the most important goal, and even to the extent that it is the goal, I
> don't think we need to meet every need before we can consider
> ourselves to have met some needs.  I don't think that we need every
> physical replication feature plus some before logical replication can
> start to be useful to PostgreSQL users generally.  We do, however,
> need the functionality to be accessible to people who are using only
> the PostgreSQL core distribution.  The thing that is going to get
> people excited about making logical replication better is getting to a
> point where they can use it at all - and that is not going to be true
> as long as you can't use it without having to download something from
> an external website.

I rather agree that an in-core system that solved some of the basic
problems would be a huge step forward, and would motivate people to
work on the harder problems. It's surprising to me that we don't seem
to be much closer to that then we were when 9.4 was released.

Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to