Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

On 2013-10-18 14:16:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 01:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-10-18 13:16:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> I thought changeset extraction was the only thing going into core? What
> >> else do we need?
> >
> > Well, I personally want more in core mid/long term, but anyway.
>
> I've lost track of the plan, then.
>
> Hmmm ... we need replication of DDL commands, no?
>
> > Without released, proven and stable logical in-core replication
> > technology using this, I don't see why repmgr or something related would
> > need/want to change?
>
> Repmgr is designed to manage binary replication, not perform it.

Obviously.

> What will likely change first is Slony and Bucardo, who have a strong
> interest in dumping triggers and queues.

But I don't understand what that has to do with recovery.conf and
breakage around it.

> A contrib module which did the
> simplest implementation -- that is, whole-database M-S replication --
> would also be a good idea, especially since it would provide an example
> of how to build your own.
>
> But I'd be wary of going beyond that in core, because you very quickly
> get into the territory of trying to satisfy multiple exclusive
> use-cases. Let's focus on providing a really good API which enables
> people to build their own tools.

We'll see. I am certain we'll have many discussions about the bits and
pieces you need to build a great replication solution (of which we imo
don't have any yet).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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