From: | Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support logical replication of global object commands |
Date: | 2023-02-17 05:28:06 |
Message-ID: | CAAD30ULcOLfRgZUKtCo0ZPeJfD2wAXxXHY=tbWXZ5HpNssNAGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Actually, I intend something for global objects. But the main thing
> > > that is worrying me about this is that we don't have a clean way to
> > > untie global object replication from database-specific object
> > > replication.
> >
> > I think ultimately we need a clean and efficient way to publish (and
> > subscribe to) any changes in all databases, preferably in one logical
> > replication slot.
> >
>
> Agreed. I was thinking currently for logical replication both
> walsender and slot are database-specific. So we need a way to
> distinguish the WAL for global objects and then avoid filtering based
> on the slot's database during decoding.
But which WALSender should handle the WAL for global objects if we
don't filter by database? Is there any specific problem you see for
decoding global objects commands in a database specific WALSender?
> I also thought about whether
> we want to have a WALSender that is not connected to a database for
> the replication of global objects but I couldn't come up with a reason
> for doing so. Do you have any thoughts on this matter?
Regards,
Zane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-17 05:30:14 | Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-17 05:14:05 | Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16? |