Re: Pglogical questions and problems

On 04/14/2016 08:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 13 April 2016 at 17:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> <mailto:simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
> > Anyway, who agrees with the overall design of pglogical and who does not?
>
> I haven't spent very much time on it yet. I tend to prefer the idea
> of integrating it more deeply into core and adding SQL syntax around
> it, but I'm not going to fight tooth and nail for that if a contrary
> consensus emerges.
>
>
> 1) "more deeply into core"
> I'm open to doing that for some parts of the code, if there is benefit.
> At present, an extension has exactly the same attributes as an in-core
> solution, so I don't currently see any benefit in doing so. Could you
> explain what you see?

From my perspective, grammar.

>
> 2) "SQL syntax"
> I'm not sure what SQL syntax would give us. I know what we would lose,
> which is the ability to implement new and interesting features as
> extensions before putting them into core. That doesn't strike me as a
> benefit, so please explain.

If by SQL syntax we mean things like "ALTER TABLE ENABLE REPLICATION"
then it is an absolute user benefit.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.