Hi,
[ moving to -hackers, that seems more appropriate. ]
Jeff Davis wrote:
> If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
> and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
> in.
That's what I'm saying. Although it's hypothetical.
> However, there may not be nifty syntax changes nor GUCs in core to
> support a specific implementation of a replicator.
I'd love to get into that one. Some of the people who have attended my
talk at the summit might know that I've introduced the following syntax
to Postgres-R:
ALTER DATABASE testdb START REPLICATION IN GROUP testgroup USING egcs;
And I'm using the system catalogs to store replication settings. What's
so wrong with that?
Joshua D. Drake wrote:> There is definitely another reason though :). Adding a replication> solution that is integrated
*will*increase development overhead in> terms of support.
Sure. It's an additional feature after all. Refusing to add stuff to
core because it increases development overhead certainly is a dead end.
> Replication touches (alot) of places.
Yes, that's exactly why I'm going the integrated way with Postgres-R.
:-)
Regards
Markus
