On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 11:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It's hard to picture what the future options might be like. Someone
> had
> an idea years ago (you even?) to add more information like table names
> or primary keys to the WAL records, to make it easier to scrape
> information from the WAL for 3rd party replication solutions. Like
> feeding a slony replica from the WAL. Or maybe we'd want to fold
> full_page_writes to the new GUC.
Yeh, lots of ideas for adding value to WAL. WAL can be considered a
transport solution with many potential uses and properties.
I haven't ever suggested adding something that would only be available
to 3rd party solutions, perhaps that information was garbled. Yes, I did
suggest that Slony might use a WAL transport in future, as an option.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
