| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <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 00:28:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbkTC9raB6RdAXJvTDNFn3YozQP6xdNtLQf-MkS-jzOjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de
> wrote:
> 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.
One of the key aspects of "standby" is that it is ready to be a drop-in
replacement for the "active" server, and today our logical replication
facility is not capable of ensuring that property and won't be for v11 that
I can tell. I'm not certain that said capability is even a goal at present.
IOW, why do you need a "standby" that isn't a drop-in replacement for a
primary - i.e., can have a filter on what replicated data it accepts?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2018-03-13 01:39:22 | Sv: Re: Logical decoding on standby |
| Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2018-03-13 00:08:03 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |