On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 05:56:00PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-11-08 11:52:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adding a similar
> > level of burden to support a feature with a narrow use-case seems like
> > a nonstarter from here.
>
> I don't understand this statement. In my experience the lack of a usable
> replication solution that allows temporary tables and major version
> differences is one of the most, if not *the* most, frequent criticisms
> of postgres I hear. How is this a narrow use case?
How would replicating DDL handle cases where the master and slave
servers have different major versions and the DDL is only supported by
the Postgres version on the master server? If it would fail, does this
limit the idea that logical replication allows major version-different
replication?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
