Re: Timeline following for logical slots

On 2016-04-05 15:51:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Review and test responses have been pretty underwhelming for pglogical, and
> quite a bit seem to have boiled down to "this should live as an extension,
> we don't need it in core". It often feels like we can't win: if we seek to
> get it into core we're told it's not wanted/needed, but if we try to focus
> on solving issues in core to make it work better and let it live as an
> extension we're told we shouldn't bother until it's in core.

I think partially that's because it's hard to see the goal from those
threads. Leading the intro email with "after applying use these three
steps to replicate a database" or something might help.

I also want to add that so far, to my knowledge, the feedback hasn't
fully been addressed. It's a bit hard to see progress at that pace.

> Do you want to get a logical replication system into core that doesn't work
> properly with lots of the other features in PostgreSQL? That's historically
> not how we've done things here, and sometimes massive amounts of work have
> been required to make new feature X work with obscure/awkward existing
> feature Y.

I think that's a strawman. We have done actual iterative development
where the basic feature came at an early stage a lot of times. Most
impressively FDWs.

And even if we decide that feature X has to be supported, having an
otherwise close-to-committable patch series, goes a *LONG* way to
motivate people.

> Still, I don't really want to block work on making logical decoding more
> real-world usable on inclusion of a logical replication system for
> PostgreSQL, especially one that'll be lucky to get in for 9.7 at the
> earliest.

My impression is that unless you *NOW* press very hard to get it into
core, there's no way to get it into 9.7. Unless you start aggressively
at some point, it'll never get in.

Greetings,

Andres Freund