| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master() |
| Date: | 2012-12-24 15:48:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20121224154817.GA30474@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 03:13:59PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I don't think that represents enough change to keep people happy, but
> I don't see anything else useful being suggested in this patch. Other
> design thoughts welcome, but personally, I think rushing this design
> through at this stage is likely to require us to change the design
> again in later releases.
Simon, you just agreed to:
> At this point, backward compatibility seems to be hampering our ability
> to move forward. I would like a vote that supports creation of a new
> method for setting up streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery,
> where backward compatibility is considered only where it is minimally
> invasive.
Let's figure out the API we want and implement it. If we haven't
figured out a perfect answer in 2 years, we never will and we should
just do our best.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2012-12-24 15:57:03 | Re: buffer assertion tripping under repeat pgbench load |
| Previous Message | Charles Gomes | 2012-12-24 15:43:04 | Re: Writing Trigger Functions in C |