From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) |
Date: | 2012-10-15 19:25:08 |
Message-ID: | 201210152125.08823.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:18:57 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
> > any other replication system could use it.
>
> I don't accept that. Clearly there is a circular dependency, and
> someone has to go first - why should the Slony guys invest in adopting
> this technology if it is going to necessitate using a forked Postgres
> with an uncertain future?
Well. I don't think (hope) anybody proposed making something release worthy for
slony but rather a POC patch that proofs the API is generic enough to be used
by them. If I (or somebody else familiar with this) work together with somebody
familiar with with slony internals I think such a POC shouldn't be too hard to
do.
I think some more input from that side is a good idea. I plan to send out an
email to possibly interested parties in about two weeks...
Regards,
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-10-15 19:35:26 | Re: Truncate if exists |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-15 19:25:07 | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) |