From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |
Date: | 2014-11-08 17:07:41 |
Message-ID: | 21908.1415466461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-11-08 11:52:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Adding a similar
>> level of burden to support a feature with a narrow use-case seems like
>> a nonstarter from here.
> I don't understand this statement. In my experience the lack of a usable
> replication solution that allows temporary tables and major version
> differences is one of the most, if not *the* most, frequent criticisms
> of postgres I hear. How is this a narrow use case?
[ shrug... ] I don't personally give a damn about logical replication,
especially not logical replication implemented in this fashion. It looks
large and rickety (ie full of opportunities for bugs) and I would never
trust data I cared about to it.
Or in short: AFAICS you're not building the next WAL-shipping replication
solution, you're building the next Slony, and Slony never has and never
will be more than a niche use-case. Putting half of it into core wouldn't
fix that, it would just put a lot more maintenance burden on core
developers. Core developers are entitled to push back on such proposals.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Erdman | 2014-11-08 17:13:58 | Fw: [GENERAL] PLV8 and JS exports / referencing |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-11-08 16:57:39 | Re: row_to_json bug with index only scans: empty keys! |