On 2014-09-26 10:40:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > As explained above this isn't happening on the level of individual AMs. > > Well, that's even worse. You want to grab 100% of the available > generic bitspace applicable to all record types for purposes specific > to logical decoding (and it's still not really enough bits).
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Right now it's available to precisely nobody. You can't put any data in there in *any* way. It just has been sitting around unused for at least 8 years. > One question I have is what the structure of the names should be. It > seems some coordination could be needed here. I mean, suppose BDR > uses bdr:$NODENAME and Slony uses > $SLONY_CLUSTER_NAME:$SLONY_INSTANCE_NAME and EDB's xDB replication > server uses xdb__$NODE_NAME. That seems like it would be sad. Maybe > we should decide that names ought to be of the form > <replication-solution>.<further-period-separated-components> or > something like that. I've also wondered about that. Perhaps we simply should have an additional 'name' column indicating the replication solution? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
