Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Date
Msg-id CAGBW59djFRsJjBELyDJMPQxnTRzFTqxYhE0=DDPuOT=YcvxgFQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
List pgsql-hackers


On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
On 7/13/16 2:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 07/07/2016 01:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

There was an unconference session on this topic at PGCon and quite a
number of people there stated that they found DDL to be an ease-of-use
feature and wanted to have it.

Yeah, I haven't meet anyone yet that would like to have:

select replicate_these_relations('['public']);

vs:

ALTER SCHEMA public ENABLE REPLICATION;

(or something like that).

I generally agree, but I think the more important question is "Why?". Is it becouse DDL looks more like a sentence? Is it because arrays are a PITA? Is it too hard to call functions?

Once you get fine grained enough to support replicating different sets
of possibly overlapping objects/namespaces to different groups of
recipients, the DDL approach becomes just as convoluted as calling
functions and nobody will memorize the entire syntax.


Jan



 

--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



--
Jan Wieck
Senior Postgres Architect

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: One process per session lack of sharing