public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jon Erdman <[email protected]>
To: Jim Nasby <[email protected]>
To: David Fetter <[email protected]>
To: Craig Ringer <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Erdman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 05:31:00 +0000
Message-ID: <0101018afe515ec9-a3b31eeb-8040-4c9d-a8e3-02cf0c7ed197-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<CANP8+jLmPXKxDsqXwf6RNSp9Q-6uc7UcZo=KNfCzH0PeehhE=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMsr+YEfTEp35bQ5ia__nDwc2MwzYUQcuQ__vT_b=UNOHyooMA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoaqJJsPNb7JDAHTtGZbH7CSenuf=0trQ_j1+_scLE-c0w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMsr+YFf4hA=hLTe2hvPZ95-Fxf3bT80-_8CWwrDpDzva3LTOw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobiQUpXpiJ0z+=PMjL4at5TteZ27A8JPMY+QQb_9NeyJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMsr+YF7vP72LzMmNhe0ppZg-KnEt8d_RXzyjZaZMNykmQEiVQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Oops,
Looking at my old message from 2015 on this subject, it was Magnus who
pish-poshed it, and Page who liked it. Don't want to throw shaded at the
wrong person ;)
--
Jon Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
PostgreSQL Zealot
On 10/5/23 12:14 AM, Jon Erdman wrote:
>
> Well,
>
> Given my earlier message about Apple wanting to pay me for writing
> patches now, maybe I can revisit this idea.
>
> For background: I brought up the idea of an FDW that could read custom
> dump files and expose them as tables so that you could grab just a
> single record (or of course more) from a custom dump file without having
> to load the whole thing up, if you were stuck reaching into a backup to
> get at accidentally deleted tables, rows, etc.. The stopper, which was
> communicated to me by Tom at the following pgcon was that the code for
> parsing custom dumps is duplicated in pg_dump only, and would need to be
> duplicated into the server for the FDW, or broken out into a library.
>
> And for posterity, Dave Page said that was a stupid idea, while Magnus
> said that it sounded useful. And IIRC Bruce and Robert H said it was
> doable, just a good deal of work on the refactor needed.
>
> This convo went down at the Amsterdam conf where I spoke about using
> writeable LVM snapshots to expose each developer a copy of prod to
> noodle on, without having to actually make a full copy for each dev.
>
> Added trivia: I gave the talk with a can of Heineken in my hand at the
> podium, and my lightning talk had the work F(&king Cool in the title ;)
>
> That was also when I bought my plush Slony which was supposedly the very
> last one. (turns out they made more)
> --
> Jon Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
> PostgreSQL Zealot
>
> On 12/15/15 9:48 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 12/13/15 7:37 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>> As I understand it, pushing these into a library has been proposed but
>>> not rejected. That it hasn't happened yet is mostly about the lack of
>>> tuits (the round ones) to rewrite the functionality as libraries and
>>> refactor pg_dump/pg_restore to use only calls to same. As usual, it's
>>> less about writing the code and more about the enormous amount of
>>> testing any such a refactor would entail.
>>
>> My understanding as well. IIRC Jon Erdman brought this question up a
>> couple years ago and the response was "It'd probably be accepted, it's
>> just that no one has done the work."
>>
>>> I believe that refactoring much of pg_dump's functionality for the
>>> current version of the server into SQL-accessible functions and making
>>> pg_dump use only those functions is achievable with available
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Such a refactor need not be all-or-nothing. For example, the
>>> dependency resolution stuff is a first step that appears to be worth
>>> doing by itself even if the effort then pauses, possibly for some
>>> time.
>>
>> If someone wanted to spend time on this, I suspect it'd be worth
>> looking at how bad some of the backward compatibility issues would be
>> if done in the server. Maybe they wouldn't be that bad. I suspect the
>> audience for this code would be much larger if it was in the server as
>> opposed to a C library.
view thread (2+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster
In-Reply-To: <0101018afe515ec9-a3b31eeb-8040-4c9d-a8e3-02cf0c7ed197-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox