Re: Postgres-R: primary key patches

Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> Thinking about index creation time doesn't make sense, as long as we
> still need a dump/restore cycle to setup replication. And even then,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that operational issue has nothing to do with the question of hiding
> the newly generated index or not.

Let me note that one of the design criteria for Slony-I was to
explicitly NOT have such a requirement.

Making the assumption that it *is* acceptable to disrupt operations
for the duration of a dump/restore cycle is certain to limit interest
in a replication system.

A most pointed case where that will cause heartburn of the "I refuse
to use this" sort is if that disruption needs to take place when
recovering from the failure of a node. That sort of disruption is
certainly counterproductive to the usual goal of replication enhancing
system availability.

Maybe I am misreading you; I rather hope so.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxfinances.info';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #145. "My dungeon cell decor will not
feature exposed pipes. While they add to the gloomy atmosphere, they
are good conductors of vibrations and a lot of prisoners know Morse
code." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>