Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have already pointed out how this patch is fundamentally broken. You can
> achieve your aims by a fairly small amount of code inside your logical
> decoder, and with no core code changes whatsoever. So I'm puzzled why we are
> even still debating this broken design.
I went through all your responses over the entire thread and I couldn't
find your argument about how this is fundamentally broken. Can you
restate, or maybe give an archive link if I just missed it?
(Saying "but it changes so much of the existing code" is not really a
fundamental problem to me. I mean, it's not like the existing code is
perfect and needs no changes.)
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
