On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 25/04/17 17:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > OTOH, I believe that logical replication is still useful even without
> > initial table sync feature. So reverting the table sync patch seems
> > possible idea.
> I don't think that's good idea, the usefulness if much lower without the
> initial copy. The original patch for this added new commands to
> replication protocol, adding generic SQL interface was result of request
> in the reviews.
Haven't followed this feature closely but my first thoughts when recently
reading about it were related to the initial copy and table synchronization
- so I'd have to agree with Petr here. Full table sync is big and for any
table with activity on it the confidence level of knowing you have
everything is greatly reduced if the system isn't making a guarantee.