| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Identify system databases |
| Date: | 2025-04-16 16:08:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1908455.1744819733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But feel free to work out a design and add it to the ToDo list for the v4
> protocol. The use case seems reasonable and doable (on the basis of the
> replication protocol works).
No, the replication protocol isn't a precedent. Physical replication
needn't connect to a particular database because it does no catalog
accesses (and hence can't run SQL). All it's able to do is suck out
the WAL stream. Logical replication can do SQL --- but it has to
connect to a specific database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton Shepelev | 2025-04-16 16:25:56 | Re: Cannot turn track_counts on |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-04-16 15:25:12 | Re: Fwd: Identify system databases |