On 05/05/17 02:46, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >>>> I would not in any way refer to logical decoding as being only a proof >>>> of concept, even before logical replication. >>> >>> The community ships a reliable logical _encoding_, and a test logical >>> _decoding_. >> >> Yes, so what? What you said is "I didn't think logical decoding was >> really more than a proof-of-concept until now", which is plainly wrong, >> given I know a significant number of users using it in production. Some >> of them are well known & large enterprises, and it's used to enable >> critical things. > > I am getting tired of saying this. When I am writing the release notes, > I am trying to figure out how it affects our shipped code, and the only > "decoding" I know of is test_decoding. My message was this:
I actually think the main misunderstanding here comes from the test_decoding name interpretation. The test_decoding does not decode anything and there are no external "decoders". The decoding happens in core, the decoding just provides C API for plugins to consume the decoded info (ie, heap tuples and similar). The test_decoding *tests* the decoding API and the external projects use the decoding API as well but they don't really decode anything, their role is of filtering and deciding the wire protocol mostly. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
