Re: Support for Slony 2.0?

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 22:17, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 19/01/2011 21:36, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 21:19, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 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
>>> special.
>>
>> Do you know anybody who actually use it? :-)
>>
>
> I know at least two that complained about it not being 2.0 aware. Not
> sure they use it really, but the big error message we have is not good.

:-) True.

> One easy way to fix 1.12 is to add a "We don't support Slony 2.0."
> message when one clicks on the replication node, and to stop showing
> nodes below it.

Well, for backport, that seems reasonable.

> But we need something for 1.14 or later: either get rid of all, or
> support all.

Agreed.

>> 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.
>>
>
> I think Slony 1.2 is working. At least, I haven't seen any bug reports.
> Slony 2.0 doesn't.

Ok.

>> 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.
>>
>
> You mean when 9.2 or 9.3 will be released? when we'll have all those
> admin and monitoring capacities? :-D yeah, I know, you're doing quite a
> lof of great stuff to make that happen now (now like "in 9.1"). Well,
> actually, I do believe this isn't the end of Slony. Not now, not
> tomorrow, not still in two years from now.

No, I mean *today*. Given that a lot of people have said "9.0 is the
replicatoin release", people are probably already reacting to it.

> To answer the question, yeah, we could rename it till we need it for
> another kind of replication (the streaming one for instance).

I think we should rename it even if we don't have another option -
simply because *postgresql* has another option.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/