On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:28:22PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > I took a look through some of the replication slot stuff and ISTM that it
> > basically gets the streaming logical/physical replication distinctions
> > correct, and I *think*
> > it gets the slot distinctions correct as well, but
; > is a good thing.
>> >
>> > Our current trminology is a mess. There are some places in the
>> > documentation
>> > that speak of physical vs. logical replication, while most places use the
>> > term "streaming replication" for physic
tion
> > that speak of physical vs. logical replication, while most places use the
> > term "streaming replication" for physical replication. I myself
> consequently
> > speak of "streaming replication" vs. "logical replication", even though
>
sense, and improving some of this
> is a good thing.
>
> Our current trminology is a mess. There are some places in the documentation
> that speak of physical vs. logical replication, while most places use the
> term "streaming replication" for physical replication.
On 12.10.24 00:53, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
Our docs seem to contrast "streaming replication" to logical, but
these are not really opposites. Sometimes when they say "streaming"
they mean "physical".
Probably this is historical: at first physical replication was the
only kind of streaming we ha
at speak of physical vs. logical replication, while most places use the
term "streaming replication" for physical replication. I myself consequently
speak of "streaming replication" vs. "logical replication", even though both
stream data. The protocol section of the doc
Our docs seem to contrast "streaming replication" to logical, but
these are not really opposites. Sometimes when they say "streaming"
they mean "physical".
Probably this is historical: at first physical replication was the
only kind of streaming we had.
Personally this has caused me a lot of conf
