Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Date: 2016-07-07 20:01:45
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYYM+Jsf6J66z2-ALVhXmg+Cc0tsUybB_nYw4szkVUgGA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> As a relatively (to our users) minor course correction, I would like
>> to propose the following:
>
>> - Develop a logical upgrade path as a part of the (Yay! Sexy!) logical
>> replication that's already in large part built.
>>
>> This path would, of course, run either locally or across a network,
>> and be testable in both cases.
>
> This is one use case that pglogical intends to fulfill. If you're able
> to contribute to that project, I'm sure many would appreciate it. Right
> now the hottest question seems to be: is this something that should be
> an extension, or should it be part of core with its own set of DDL etc?
> The current patch is geared towards the former, so if the community at
> large prefers to have it as the latter and would oppose the former, now
> is the time to speak up so that the course can be corrected.

There was an unconference session on this topic at PGCon and quite a
number of people there stated that they found DDL to be an ease-of-use
feature and wanted to have it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-07-07 20:10:30 Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-07-07 19:57:05 Re: strange explain in upstream - subplan 1 twice - is it bug?