On 2014-09-26 10:40:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > As explained above this isn't happening on the level of individual AMs.
>
> Well, that's even worse. You want to grab 100% of the available
> generic bitspace applicable to all record types for purposes specific
> to logical decoding (and it's still not really enough bits).
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Right now it's available
to precisely nobody. You can't put any data in there in *any* way. It
just has been sitting around unused for at least 8 years.
> One question I have is what the structure of the names should be. It
> seems some coordination could be needed here. I mean, suppose BDR
> uses bdr:$NODENAME and Slony uses
> $SLONY_CLUSTER_NAME:$SLONY_INSTANCE_NAME and EDB's xDB replication
> server uses xdb__$NODE_NAME. That seems like it would be sad. Maybe
> we should decide that names ought to be of the form
> <replication-solution>.<further-period-separated-components> or
> something like that.
I've also wondered about that. Perhaps we simply should have an
additional 'name' column indicating the replication solution?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services