| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "gonzales(at)linuxlouis(dot)net" <gonzales(at)linuxlouis(dot)net>, "Guillaume Lelarge" <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, "Kenneth Downs" <ken(at)secdat(dot)com>, nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slightly OT. |
| Date: | 2007-06-01 19:50:55 |
| Message-ID: | 22491.1180727455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> writes:
> On 6/1/07, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> To be fair to Slony-I, the fact that it does not replicate DDL is a
>> feature, not a bug. It's table-based, which is a very flexible design.
> I fail to see how that's an excuse not to replicate DDL.
> I could be wrong, but I believe Slony fails at this because it is
> trigger-based and simply cannot detect DDL changes.
You are wrong. The Slony guys say this is intentional, and they have
some good arguments. They may be making a virtue of necessity, but
automatic replication of DDL is not nearly as open-and-shut a decision
as you paint it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-01 20:00:34 | Re: collision in serial numbers after INSERT? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-06-01 19:44:31 | Re: multimaster |