| From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, gonzales(at)linuxlouis(dot)net, "Guillaume Lelarge" <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, "Kenneth Downs" <ken(at)secdat(dot)com>, nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slightly OT. |
| Date: | 2007-06-01 22:05:20 |
| Message-ID: | 88daf38c0706011505t3ef0b138w426d627e4165bf30@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/2/07, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> writes:
>
> > I would love for the answer to have been "sorry, we did not have time
> > or manpower enough to implement fully transparent replication yet,
> > because it's a rather complex, you see";
>
> Would you still love that if you're one of the people who use replication to
> move the data to a reporting database which has a modified schema appropriate
> for the different usage? This improvement would make it useless for that
> purpose.
All you would require is a simple boolean flag to enable or disable
automatic DDL propagation, surely. Clearly people use replication for
different purposes; the current system favours people who prefer to
handle DDL propagation manually, and I am not one of them.
Alexander.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed L. | 2007-06-01 22:07:25 | Re: query log corrupted-looking entries |
| Previous Message | Ed L. | 2007-06-01 22:03:21 | Re: query log corrupted-looking entries |