Re: Design for In-Core Logical Replication

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Design for In-Core Logical Replication
Date: 2016-07-21 03:05:25
Message-ID: 57903BF5.5000303@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/20/2016 06:35 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:

> First, I'd like to emphasise that logical replication has been stalled
> for ages now because we can no longer make forward progress on core
> features needed until we have in-core logical replication (they're
> dismissed as irrelevant, no in core users, etc) - but we have also had
> difficulty getting logical replication into core. To break this impasse
> we really need logical replication in core and need to focus on getting
> the minimum viable feature in place, not trying to make it do everything
> all at once. Point-to-point replication with no forwarding should be
> just fine for the first release. Lets not bog this in extra "must have"
> features that aren't actually crucial.

I don't think any person who actually works on postgresql with customers
and clearly deals with "competition" can state with any sanity that we
don't need logical replication in core.

JD

--
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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-07-21 03:20:30 Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-07-21 02:56:03 Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails