On 2016-04-05 15:51:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Review and test responses have been pretty underwhelming for pglogical, and
> quite a bit seem to have boiled down to "this should live as an extension,
> we don't need it in core". It often feels like we can't win: if we seek to
> get it into core we're told it's not wanted/needed, but if we try to focus
> on solving issues in core to make it work better and let it live as an
> extension we're told we shouldn't bother until it's in core.

I think partially that's because it's hard to see the goal from those
threads. Leading the intro email with "after applying use these three
steps to replicate a database" or something might help.

I also want to add that so far, to my knowledge, the feedback hasn't
fully been addressed. It's a bit hard to see progress at that pace.

> Do you want to get a logical replication system into core that doesn't work
> properly with lots of the other features in PostgreSQL? That's historically
> not how we've done things here, and sometimes massive amounts of work have
> been required to make new feature X work with obscure/awkward existing
> feature Y.

I think that's a strawman. We have done actual iterative development
where the basic feature came at an early stage a lot of times. Most
impressively FDWs.

And even if we decide that feature X has to be supported, having an
otherwise close-to-committable patch series, goes a *LONG* way to
motivate people.

> Still, I don't really want to block work on making logical decoding more
> real-world usable on inclusion of a logical replication system for
> PostgreSQL, especially one that'll be lucky to get in for 9.7 at the
> earliest.

My impression is that unless you *NOW* press very hard to get it into
core, there's no way to get it into 9.7. Unless you start aggressively
at some point, it'll never get in.


Andres Freund

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

Reply via email to