Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers
Date: 2014-11-27 01:16:57
Message-ID: 20141127011657.GB22659@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 05:56:00PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-11-08 11:52:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adding a similar
> > level of burden to support a feature with a narrow use-case seems like
> > a nonstarter from here.
>
> I don't understand this statement. In my experience the lack of a usable
> replication solution that allows temporary tables and major version
> differences is one of the most, if not *the* most, frequent criticisms
> of postgres I hear. How is this a narrow use case?

How would replicating DDL handle cases where the master and slave
servers have different major versions and the DDL is only supported by
the Postgres version on the master server? If it would fail, does this
limit the idea that logical replication allows major version-different
replication?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-11-27 01:38:44 Re: BUG #12071: Stat collector went crasy (50MB/s constant writes)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-11-27 00:59:39 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}