Re: [GENERAL] pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10
От | Achilleas Mantzios |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8aef2f96-a46c-62bd-a15e-0d1249b57dc6@matrix.gatewaynet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [GENERAL] pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10 (Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10
Re: [GENERAL] pglogical vs. built-in logical replication in pg-10 |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 22/06/2017 11:21, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
You may do a simple test, create a table with a largeobject and try to read the logical stream, if it cannot represent the lo_import, lo_open, lowrite, lo_close (and I 'd bet they can't be encoded) then neither pglogical (being based on the same logical decoding technology) will support them.Hi.1. Why should one prefer built-in logical replication in pg-10 to pglogical, does it do anything pglogical doesn't?It seems pglogical is more feature-rich...2. As I understand built-in logical replication in pg-10 doesn't support large-objects, which we use a lot. Does pglogical replicate large objects? I cannot find any notes about large-objects under "Limitations and Restrictions": https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/pglogical/pglogical-docs/
--Andreas Joseph KroghCTO / Partner - Visena ASMobile: +47 909 56 963
-- Achilleas Mantzios IT DEV Lead IT DEPT Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
Вложения
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: