Hi, On 2021-06-11 16:05:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > You seem to see this as some kind of major problem and I guess I don't > agree. I think it's pretty clear what the motivation was for the > current behavior, because I believe it's well-explained by the comment > and the three people who have tried to answer your question. I also > think it's pretty clear why somebody might find it surprising: someone > might think that fast-forwarding is harmful and risky rather than a > useful convenience. As evidence for the fact that someone might think > that, I offer the fact that you seem to think exactly that thing. I > also think that there's pretty good evidence that the behavior as it > exists is not really so bad. As far as I know, and I certainly might > have missed something, you're the first one to complain about behavior > that we've had for quite a long time now, and you seem to be saying > that it might cause problems for somebody, not that you know it > actually did. So, I don't know, I'm not opposed to talking about > potential improvements here, but to the extent that you're suggesting > this is unreasonable behavior, I think that's too harsh.
Yea. I think it'd be a different matter if streaming logical decoding had been added this cycle and we'd started out with supporting queries over replication connection - but it's been long enough that it's likely that people rely on the current behaviour, and I don't see the gain in reliability outweigh the compat issues. Your argument that one can just check kinda goes both ways - you can do that with the current behaviour too... Greetings, Andres Freund
