Hi,
On 2018-04-02 23:07:17 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We then lack any mechanism by which you can NACK, saying "I can't apply
> this".
Sure, but nothing forces this mechanism to be in-band.
> So upstream will wait indefinitely. I guess we just expect the user to
> intervene and ROLLBACK if th
On 1 April 2018 at 00:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-31 22:13:42 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > We'll still need a mechanism to transport them to downstreams (like WAL
> > messages) and to send responses upstream. For responses I think we will
> > finally want to add a backchannel to the l
On 2018-03-31 22:13:42 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> We'll still need a mechanism to transport them to downstreams (like WAL
> messages) and to send responses upstream. For responses I think we will
> finally want to add a backchannel to the logical replication protocol as
> I've wanted for a long w
On 31 March 2018 at 15:53, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> > My whole point is that in most architectures, DBAs decide to deploy the
> same
> > SQL on providers and subscribers. Yes it isn't perfect, but IMO, it is
> very
> > helpful to try to automate that idea, as opposed to trying to
Hi Jeremy,
> My whole point is that in most architectures, DBAs decide to deploy the same
> SQL on providers and subscribers. Yes it isn't perfect, but IMO, it is very
> helpful to try to automate that idea, as opposed to trying to actually
> replicate DDL at the low level. The latter is better,
On 31 March 2018 at 01:03, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/18 13:21, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>> > Although we are thrilled with some of the features already in logical
>> > replication, this missi
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Our team in PostgresPro is also very interested in this discussion,
> because we are using logical decoding in multimaster.
> Right now in multimaster DDLs are replicated in this same way as in
> pglogical
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/18 13:21, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> > Although we are thrilled with some of the features already in logical
> > replication, this missing feature is the #1 reason that we don't plan to
> > take a s
On 3/29/18 13:21, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Although we are thrilled with some of the features already in logical
> replication, this missing feature is the #1 reason that we don't plan to
> take a serious look at built-in logical replication even for pg11,
> because we have been able to use pglogical
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 09:38:44AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik <
> k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> > Our team in PostgresPro is also very interested in this discussion,
> > because we are using logical decoding in multimaster.
> > Right
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik <
k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>
> Our team in PostgresPro is also very interested in this discussion,
> because we are using logical decoding in multimaster.
> Right now in multimaster DDLs are replicated in this same way as in
> pglogic
On 29.03.2018 20:21, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
Hello!
I have not seen much discussion about what the plans are for being
able to manage schema changes when using logical replication. In our
own infrastructure, mechanisms that have been provided to manage DDL
statements at the same transactional
Hello!
I have not seen much discussion about what the plans are for being able to
manage schema changes when using logical replication. In our own
infrastructure, mechanisms that have been provided to manage DDL statements
at the same transactional point as they happen on the master have been
imm
13 matches
Mail list logo
