On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I can't imagine that there is a lot of interest in a replication tool
> where you only get one side of it, no matter how well-designed or
> general it is.
Well I do have another purpose in mind myself so I do appreciate it
being available now and separately.
However you also need to keep in mind that any of these other purposes
will be more or less equally large projects as logical replication.
There's no particular reason to expect one to be able to start up
today and provide feedback faster than the replication code that's
already been under development for ages. I haven't even started on my
pet project and probably won't until February. And I haven't even
thought through the details of it so I don't even know if it'll be a
matter of a few weeks or months or more.
The one project that does seem like it should be fairly fast to get
going and provide a relatively easy way to test the APIs separately
would be an auditing tool. I saw one go by but didn't look into
whether it used logical decoding or another mechanism. One based on
logical decoding does seem like it would let you verify that, for
example, the api gave the right information to filter effectively and
store meta information to index the audit records effectively.
--
greg