[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marko Kreen") writes:
> Also the design should be based on assumption that the target side
> is exactly in sync. Eg. DROP CASCADE should be replicated as DROP CASCADE.
> We should not make scheme more complex to survive cases where target
> is not in sync. That way madness lie
Hi Marko,
No fear, we definitely will discuss on pgsql-hackers. I just wanted to make
sure that people understood we are still committed to solving this problem and
will one way or another commit resources to help.
Just to be clear, by logical replication I mean replication based on sending
S
On 7/10/08, Robert Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a quick update on a promise I made early in June to suggest
> requirements as well as ways to add replication hooks that would support
> logical replication, as opposed to the physical replication work currently
> underway based on NTT
Hi everyone,
This is a quick update on a promise I made early in June to suggest
requirements as well as ways to add replication hooks that would support
logical replication, as opposed to the physical replication work currently
underway based on NTT's code.
Well, June was a pretty busy month,
