On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely
>> any other replication system could use it.
>
> I don't accept that. Clearly there is a circular dependency, and
> someone has to go first - why should the Slony guys invest in adopting
> this technology if it is going to necessitate using a forked Postgres
> with an uncertain future?
Clearly, core needs to go first. However, before we commit, I would
like to hear the Slony guys say something like this: We read the
documentation that is part of this patch and if the feature behaves as
advertised, we believe we will be able to use it in place of the
change-capture mechanism that we have now, and that it will be at
least as good as what we have now if not a whole lot better.
If they say something like "I'm not sure we have the right design for
this" or "this wouldn't be sufficient to replace this portion of what
we have now because it lacks critical feature X", I would be very
concerned about that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
