Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:47:00 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>,
	Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik@postgres.ai>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Built-in Raft replication
Message-ID: <Z_98lANtXMJddscA@ark>
References: <Z_1Cq7JvabsFYjQo@ark>
 <CAKAnmmJxGHcQmzXqEQ-nppZjXyH7i5W_7Cz8JNMb2+6c5+D+og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM527d9+eGvdih1GxoPDJ2WYs6eitf39oNTxGxnCK1PgF=A8wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1798838.1744759182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1798838.1744759182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z_98lANtXMJddscA%40ark>
Precedence: bulk

* Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> [25/04/16 11:05]:
> Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik@postgres.ai> writes:
> > This is exactly what I wanted to write as well. The idea is great. At the
> > same time, I think, consensus on many decisions will be extremely hard to
> > reach, so this project has a high risk of being very long. Unless it's an
> > extension, at least in the beginning.
> 
> Yeah.  The two questions you'd have to get past to get this into PG
> core are:
> 
> 1. Why can't it be an extension?  (You claimed it would work more
> seamlessly in core, but I don't think you've made a proven case.)

I think this can be best addressed when the discussion moves on to
an architecture design record, where the UX and implementation
details are outlined. I'm sure there can be a lot of bike-shedding
on that part. For now I merely wanted to know if:
- maybe there is a reason this will never be accepted
- maybe someone is already working on this.