Hi,
Jeff Davis wrote:
> Because we're talking about replication, I don't think we can limit the
> discussion to current open source solutions. I could be mistaken, but I
> am under the impression that commercial replication solutions do patch
> the backend.
Sure. But as you see, at least Joshua D. Drake is quite happy with
patch -p1 < all_his_replicator_changes.diff
I'm, too. Because I don't think I could get anything useful into core.
And as long as I'd still have to patch the backend, what would that
serve me?
I really think this decision should be left to the developers of
replication systems. We *will* ask core, if we want to have something
added (as did the GORDA project). I state the same in my FAQ at [1].
> You're right, there is no agreement yet. When I say "first step," I mean
> that it's the first step toward getting any form of replication support
> in the _backend_, _not_ a first step toward a replication solution at
> all.
Okay, sorry, then I misread you.
> It may be a long time before the backend has replication-specific
> support of any kind, but many replication projects have passed the first
> step toward replication a long time ago.
Have they? Have you heard requests for specific additions into core from
any of them?
> I am not advocating replication support in the backend (since I don't
> even know what form that would take), nor am I saying that it will
> appear soon. I am just saying that replication-specific syntax is
> unlikely to appear before other replication-specific details.
Sure.
Regards
Markus
[1]: http://www.postgres-r.org/about/faqs