From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Ben Carbery <ben(dot)carbery(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_listener table errors with slony |
Date: | 2011-06-01 16:11:14 |
Message-ID: | 1306944675.28411.12.camel@laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-support |
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 09:58 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> Hi Guillaume
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> > Le 19/01/2011 22:33, Dave Page a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> >> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> >>> We had 1.2 support. To have 2.0, we would have to get rid of the
> >>> sl_trigger checks. Or was it dropped along the way of 2.0?
> >>
> >> No idea - I just recall Sachin working on compatibility, and that was
> >> one of/the patch he came of with.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, you're right. I now see the commit. Which means we have two bugs
> > on 2.0 support.
>
> What happened with this in the end? I've just run into the pg_listener
> bug again. I see from the thread you said you were going to work on
> it, but then we got side-tracked into a discussion on whether we
> should have slony support at all.
>
I still have it on my todo list.
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-06-01 16:13:56 | Re: pg_listener table errors with slony |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2011-06-01 15:27:56 | Re: pg_listener table errors with slony |