On 2015-12-15 13:46:29 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I don't think that approach alone is good enough. It might be ok for
> selective replication where the replication is driven by tables anyway, but
> in general and especially for failover it's not good enough to tell user
> that we handle some sequences and they have to fix the rest manually.
I think it solves roughly 80-90% of all usages of sequences. That's a
significant improvement over the status quo.
I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's applicable to 9.4, and might
be good enough initially. I'm not arguing against adding sequence
decoding here.
> That's not much different than fixing them all in practice as you
> script it anyway.
If you can easily script it, it's just the same type (sequences owned by
a single column), everything else starts to be a bit more complicated anyway.
Andres
