Re: Logical Replication Helpers WIP for discussion

<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Petr
Jelinek<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:petr@2ndquadrant.com" target="_blank">petr@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On13/02/15 14:04, Petr Jelinek wrote:<br /></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""> On 13/02/15 08:48, Michael Paquier wrote:<br
/></span><spanclass=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><br/> Looking at this patch, I don't see what we actually gain much here<br /> except a decoder
pluginthat speaks a special protocol for a special<br /> background worker that has not been presented yet. What
actuallyis the<br /> value of that defined as a contrib/ module in-core. Note that we have<br /> already test_decoding
tobasically test the logical decoding facility,<br /> used at least at the SQL level to get logical changes decoded.<br
/><br/> Based on those reasons I am planning to mark this as rejected (it has no<br /> documentation as well). So
pleasespeak up if you think the contrary,<br /> but it seems to me that this could live happily out of core.<br
/></blockquote><br/> I think you are missing point of this, it's not meant to be committed in<br /> this form at all
andeven less as contrib module. It was meant as basis<br /> for in-core logical replication discussion, but sadly I
didn'treally<br /> have time to pursue it in this CF in the end.<br /><br /></span></blockquote><br /> That being said
andlooking at the size of February CF, I think I am fine with dropping this in 9.5 cycle, it does not seem likely that
therewill be anything useful done with this fast enough to get to 9.5 so there is no point in spending committer
resourceson it in final CF.<br /><br /> I will pick it up again after the CF is done.</blockquote></div><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra">OK, thanks for the clarifications. Note that I am marking it as "rejected" in CF
2014-12not because it is something that is not wanted, but just not to re-add it to CF 2015-02 which is what "returned
withfeedback" actually does...<br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature">Michael<br /></div></div></div>