Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axdfr-0005CB-1M for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 16:59:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axdfq-0001TF-K8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 16:59:50 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axdeV-0006W3-H4 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 16:58:27 +0000 Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com ([8.23.224.60]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axdeR-0003ON-3l for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 16:58:27 +0000 X-No-IP: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [216.155.90.98]) (Authenticated sender: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EEC6D400FDD; Tue, 3 May 2016 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CD596438; Tue, 3 May 2016 13:58:12 -0300 (CLST) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:58:12 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Andres Freund Cc: Robert Haas , Tom Lane , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: what to revert Message-ID: <20160503165812.GA29604@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160503161210.nzlmppuqt5wxlv6f@alap3.anarazel.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund wrote: > I'm *really* doubtful about the logical timeline following patches. I > think they're, as committed, over-complicated and pretty much unusable. As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature. Craig was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts that would use it. Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that we can revisit it for 9.7. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers