On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 21:19, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> I want to know if we still want to support Slony. I was working on
> fixing an issue with our support of Slony till I finally understood we
> don't have any support of Slony 2.0.
> I remember that some of us wanted to get rid of our Slony support. I'm
> all to keep it. I think this is the kind of things that makes pgAdmin
Do you know anybody who actually use it? :-)
I'm +1 for keeping it as long as it doesn't take a lot of work to
maintain it, but if it does I htink that time is better spent
elsewhere. But in the end, it's up to whomever wants to spend the
time. If it's not actually *broken* now, that means it didn't really
require much maintenance before, because I don't recall seeing a lot
of "fix slony support" commits.
Oh, and if we're doing much work on it, how about renaming it from
"Replication" to "slony replication" or such? So people won't confuse
it with streaming replication which is what most people will think we
mean with "replication" in the future, I think.
In response to
pgadmin-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2011-01-19 21:17:49|
|Subject: Re: Support for Slony 2.0?|
|Previous:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2011-01-19 20:19:41|
|Subject: Support for Slony 2.0?|