Re: Spec discussion: Generalized Data Queue / Modification Trigger
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spec discussion: Generalized Data Queue / Modification Trigger |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B8E9F7E.6060704@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Spec discussion: Generalized Data Queue / Modification Trigger (Josh Berkus <josh@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spec discussion: Generalized Data
Queue / Modification Trigger
Re: Spec discussion: Generalized Data Queue / Modification Trigger |
Список | pgsql-cluster-hackers |
> Now, I have my idea on how I'd like the Data Queue / Modification > Triggers to work, but I'm not the one who proposed those two closely > related features. Can the original proposers speak up on what kind of > spec you had in mind? Since nobody has spoken up about this, I'll spec it myself ... particularly since I care strongly about it for heterogenous replication (that is, replication to non-PostgreSQL systems). As far as I can see, things would be of general utility: (1) The ability to send asynchronous (or synchronous?) notifications, on a per-row basis, whenever data is modified *only after commit*. This has been generally described as "on-commit triggers", but could actually take a variety of forms. (2) A generic yet compact portable serialization format for a row of PostgreSQL data, just as protobuf, or something internal. (3) A method of marking DDL changes in the data modification stream. Of the three above, #2 seems the most optional, and possibly completely counter-productive. Even if we decided that a general portable data format made sense, we could retrofit it later. So dropping it from the spec. The question is, can we satisfy (1) with the new LISTEN/NOTIFY, or is it inadequate? I'll also point out that currently DEFFERABLE CONSTRAINT/TRIGGERS can be perverted to work like an after-commit trigger. For (3), it kind of depends on another item on the list, the DDL triggers. Discussion? --Josh Berkus
В списке pgsql-cluster-hackers по дате отправления: