From: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pglogical - logical replication contrib module |
Date: | 2016-02-16 16:54:54 |
Message-ID: | CAF4Au4zmspWiqq=nCFF5Shy-3foaDiwNt+Xk2s7TLa-83D=9Hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:14:26PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > On 12/31/2015 03:34 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I'd like to submit the replication solution which is based on the
> > >pglogical_output [1] module (which is obviously needed for this to
> > >compile).
> >
> > This is fantastic! However, history presents itself here and
> > PostgreSQL in the past has not "blessed" a single solution for
> > Replication. Obviously that changed a bit with streaming replication
> > but this is a bit different than that. As I understand it, PgLogical
> > is Logical Replication (similar to Slony and Londiste). I wouldn't
> > be surprised (although I don't know) if Slony were to start using
> > some of the pglogical_output module features in the future.
> >
> > If we were to accept PgLogical into core, it will become the default
> > blessed solution for PostgreSQL. While that is great in some ways
> > it is a different direction than the project has taken in the past.
> > Is this what we want to do?
>
> Replying late here, but I think with binary replication, we decided
> that, assuming you were happy with the features provided, our streaming
> binary replication solution was going to be the best and recommended way
> of doing it.
>
> I don't think we ever had that feeling with Slony or Londiste in that
> there were so many limitations and so many different ways of
> implementing logical replication that we never recommended a best way.
>
> So, the question is, do we feel that PgLogical is best and recommended
> way to do logical replication. If it is, then having it in core makes
> sense.
>
DDL support is what it's missed for now.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Roman grave inscription +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2016-02-16 17:02:37 | Question about Restart point and checkpoint_segments |
Previous Message | Victor Wagner | 2016-02-16 16:48:57 | Re: Small PATCH: check of 2 Perl modules |