Hi,
Jeff Davis wrote:
> Nothing's wrong with that approach. My prediction, however, is that:
>
> (1) Similar replication solutions will first agree on some common hooks
> they need in the backend that may have no actual SQL syntax associated,
> and get patches in
Well, before that, you need to know what hooks you need. And that again
involves lots of implementation details. Thus better first implement
without hooks, otherwise you might later notice that there is something
you didn't think of.
> (2) then agree on some implementations details
> (3) then agree on the syntax
>
> To talk about getting syntax in the backend now seems like putting the
> cart before the horse, to me anyway.
That was just an example. Postgres-R actually already does a lot behind
the scenes if you type that command. So, yes, the horse definitely came
before the cart.
> But there's nothing wrong with
> having SQL syntax for the replication.
Okay. After reading the tsearch2 discussion I got another feeling, but
that might just have been me.
Regards
Markus
