Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > >> The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
> > >
> > > If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up
> > > being Slony is designed to work across a multitude of versions of PG, and
> > > unless this was backported to at least 7.4, it would take a while (ie
> > > when we stopped supporting versions older than it was ported into)
> > > before we would make use of it.
> > [ shrug... ] That's not happening; for one thing the change requires a
> > layout change in pg_control and we have no mechanism to do that without
> > initdb.
> I'll take a bit more of a look through the patch and see if it is a real boot
> to use it on those platforms that support it, and that we have a suitable way
> around it on those that don't. But at this point I wouldn't hold my breath
> on that
The alternative seems to be that the Slony-I team doesn't feel they have
a need for it, nobody else pushes hard enough for the feature to be in
core, and thus Slony-I and all the rest stays broken forever.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Diogo Biazus||Date: 2006-07-26 21:36:42|
|Subject: Re: xlogdump behaviour translating dropped relations|
|Previous:||From: Bort, Paul||Date: 2006-07-26 21:29:38|
|Subject: Re: GUC with units, details|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2006-07-26 21:43:05|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2006-07-26 21:29:17|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree|