On Dec 13, 2007 11:31 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:28:20PM +0100, cichy wrote:
> >
> > So, it is not possible to make those records stay in the replicated
> > table in slave DB without adding there another table which will gather
> > data?
> > Maybe logging trigger could be modified or wrapped somehow, so it
> > doesn't log certain deletions?
>
> I suppose that with enough hacking on it, you could do this, but I'd suggest
> against it.  I know that there's a proposal afoot to do pre-filtering of
> change applications.  I think it was discussed on list here a couple months
> ago.
>

I'm going to use the safe method, as I'm not sure what side effects
might happen after modyfying replication mechanisms.
Thank You, for your help.

PR