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.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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 +