Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Date: 2016-07-08 11:37:23
Message-ID: 577F9073.1020003@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/07/16 12:47, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 8 July 2016 at 09:41, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> If you want to add a column to a table, you
> say ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN. If you want to add a column to an
> extension, you say ALTER EXTENSION .. ADD TABLE. If you want to add
> an option to a foreign table, you say ALTER FOREIGN TABLE .. OPTIONS
> (ADD ..). Therefore, I think it is entirely reasonable and obviously
> consistent with existing practice that if you want to add a table to a
> replication set, you should write ALTER REPLICATION SET .. ADD TABLE.
> I don't understand why logical replication should be the one feature
> that departs from the way that all of our other features work.
>
>
> Because unlike all the other features, it can work usefully *across
> versions*.

I don't see how that matters for definitions in catalogs though. It's
not like we want to do any kind of RPC to add table to replication set
on the remote node.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-07-08 11:57:53 Re: Showing parallel status in \df+
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-07-08 11:10:38 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14230: Wrong timeline returned by pg_stop_backup on a standby