From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slony schemas |
Date: | 2008-01-14 21:23:27 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10801141323w30f9e2ceya99f334078fa7289@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
> >>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
> >>> there.
> >>>
> >>> Any objections to this?
> >> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)
> >
> > Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial
> > name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are.
>
> Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)".
> Seems sensible enough?
Yup.
/D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2008-01-14 22:14:07 | Re: Slony schemas |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-01-14 21:08:11 | Re: Slony schemas |