Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I have already pointed out how this patch is fundamentally broken. You can > achieve your aims by a fairly small amount of code inside your logical > decoder, and with no core code changes whatsoever. So I'm puzzled why we are > even still debating this broken design.
I went through all your responses over the entire thread and I couldn't find your argument about how this is fundamentally broken. Can you restate, or maybe give an archive link if I just missed it? (Saying "but it changes so much of the existing code" is not really a fundamental problem to me. I mean, it's not like the existing code is perfect and needs no changes.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
