Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached)
Date
Msg-id 507D6EAE.5010303@Yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached)  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/15/2012 4:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Jan spoke at length at PgCon, for all to hear, that what we are
> building is a much better way than the trigger logging approach Slony
> uses. I don't take that as carte blanche for approval of everything
> being done, but its going in the right direction with an open heart,
> which is about as good as it gets.

The mechanism you are building for capturing changes is certainly a lot 
better than what Bucardo, Londiste and Slony are doing today. That much 
is true.

The flip side of the coin however is that all of today's logical 
replication systems are designed Postgres version agnostic to a degree. 
This means that the transition time from the existing, trigger based 
approach to the new WAL based mechanism will see both technologies in 
parallel, which is no small thing to support. And that transition time 
may last for a good while. We still have people installing Slony 1.2 
because 2.0 (3 years old by now) requires Postgres 8.3 minimum.


Jan

-- 
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Global Sequences
Next
From: Guillaume Lelarge
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in -c CLI option of pg_dump/pg_restore