On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 01:08:56PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> Merci monsieur!
De rien, monsieur.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:39 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:45:32PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > If you can send a patch, that would be great. As that's an
> > improvement, I would go for HEAD only.
>
> I have gone through this patch set again, and applied most of th
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:45:32PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> If you can send a patch, that would be great. As that's an
> improvement, I would go for HEAD only.
I have gone through this patch set again, and applied most of the
suggested changes on HEAD as of 8550cbd, updating while on it so
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:47:07PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> I think I like targets over servers, since it could be a different
> server or the same server or even the same database, but happy either
> way.
I'd say the opposite here: servers over targets. But that's just one
opinion.
> LMK if
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:11 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:40:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > maybe "to one or more replicas." or maybe "to one or more replica
> > targets." I'd avoid the word cluster because you could set it up to
> > send to multiple databases in t
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:40:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> maybe "to one or more replicas." or maybe "to one or more replica
> targets." I'd avoid the word cluster because you could set it up to
> send to multiple databases in the same postgres cluster.
Magnus has given a better suggestion: t
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 11:52:11AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In particular, why is the primary a "server" and the replica a "node"? That
> caught my eye for inconsistency -- but changing node to cluster will be
> equally inconsistent, just in a different way. Why not just call them both
> ser
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:46 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 07:16:43PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the
> > high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested
> > changes that hopefully clarify how t
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:46 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 07:16:43PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the
> > high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested
> > changes that hopefully clarify how th
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 07:16:43PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the
> high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested
> changes that hopefully clarify how the various replication options
> work (specifically around logical
Howdy folks,
A recent discussion on slack prompted me to read through the
high-availability section of the docs, turning in to some suggested
changes that hopefully clarify how the various replication options
work (specifically around logical and trigger-based solutions). A
proposed patch is attac
11 matches
Mail list logo
