| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical decoding on standby |
| Date: | 2018-03-13 01:40:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20180313014041.pbxth2kthczjfq3d@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
On 2018-03-13 01:08:03 +0100, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
> On 13 March 2018 00:58:27 CET, Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> wrote:
> >On 12 March 2018 21:18:22 CET, Andreas Joseph Krogh
> ><andreas(at)visena(dot)com> wrote:
> >>Anybody knows if $subject will make it into v11?
I can't see it happening for v11, there's not even a CF entry in the
last CF.
> >Why do you think you needs this?
> >
> >Regards, Andreas
>
> Let me explain my question. One of the key aspects of logical replication is, that you can define what to replicate. That wouldn't work in this way, that's why i'm asking.
The subject said logical decoding, not replication. There's a lot of
change data capture type workloads where decoding from the standby is
quite useful. And the design definitely would work for that, we've
explicitly took that into consideration.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | matt.figg | 2018-03-13 03:23:11 | Programmatically duplicating a schema |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2018-03-13 01:39:22 | Sv: Re: Logical decoding on standby |