Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that burden already exists for non-utility statements --- why
>> should utility statements get a pass? Other than that we tend to invent
>> new utility syntax freely, which might be a good thing to discourage
>> anyhow.
> My concerns are that (1) it will slow down the addition of new
> features to PostgreSQL by adding yet another barrier to commit and (2)
> it won't be get enough use or regression test coverage to be, or
> remain, bug-free.
Meh. The barriers to inventing new statements are already mighty tall.
As for (2), I agree there's risk of bugs, but what alternative have you
got that is likely to be less bug-prone? At least a reverse-list
capability could be tested standalone without having to set up a logical
replication configuration.
This should not be interpreted as saying I'm gung-ho to do this, mind
you. I'm just saying that if our intention is to support logical
replication of all DDL operations, none of the alternatives look cheap.
regards, tom lane
