On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:33:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-06-03 18:27:12 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> There *is* a need, namely to keep complexity down. This is quite
>> convoluted, it's got a lot of historical baggage because of the way it
>> was implemented, and it's very difficult to understand. The greatest
>> motive I see is to make this easier to understand, so that it is easier
>> to modify and improve in the future.
>
> That seems like a possibly convincing argument for not introducing the
> capability, but doesn't seem strong enough to remove it. Especially not
> if it was just broken as part of effectively a refactoring, as far as I
> understand?
Are there any objections in fixing the issue first then? As far as I
can see there is no objection to this part, like here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200603214448.GA901@alvherre.pgsql
>> I don't think having a physical replication connection access catalog
>> data directly is a great idea. We already have gadgets like
>> IDENTIFY_SYSTEM for physical replication that can do that, and if you
>> need particular settings you can use SHOW (commit d1ecd539477). If
>> there was a strong need for even more than that, we can add something to
>> the grammar.
>
> Those special case things are a bad idea, and we shouldn't introduce
> more. It's unrealistic that we can ever make that support everything,
> and since we already have to support the database connected thing, I
> don't see the point.
Let's continue discussing this part as well.
--
Michael