Re: standard interfaces for replication providers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/4/06, alfranio correia junior <alfranio(at)lsd(dot)di(dot)uminho(dot)pt> wrote:
>> patches to the PostgreSQL server and a plugin provide the necessary
>> functionality with minimal intrusion.

> I haven't looked at the patch for this in awhile, but does anyone have
> anything against it?

We haven't been able to build production-grade multi-master replication
without the barrier of a "standard" database-agnostic API, so I kinda
doubt that it will work all that much better with one. See Slony-II.
In short the burden of proof is to show why this should go in, not why not.
(Suitable proof would be a usable replication system built atop it...)

regards, tom lane