Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 8/31/17 08:19, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I think that, in the end, covered all the comments?
> I didn't see any explanation of what this would actually be useful for.
> I suppose you could skip over some changes you don't want replicated,
> but how do you find to what position to skip?
Um ... I can see how you might expect to skip some events in a logical
replication stream and have a chance of things not being utterly broken.
But how can that work for physical replication? Missed updates are
normally spelled "unrecoverable data corruption" at that level.
regards, tom lane