Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_listener table errors with slony

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Ben Carbery <ben(dot)carbery(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_listener table errors with slony
Date: 2011-01-19 21:47:42
Message-ID: AANLkTinbJtvSRsHhmxYsAjR_NwzCSzM50pmK_EXfSz+R@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-support
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 19/01/2011 22:33, Dave Page a écrit :
>
>> Plus, it's just one of many replication engines.
>>
>
> This isn't a good reason to me. I would like to see something alike for SR.

My point is, why should we support one external replication engine
over another? Originally, it was because Slony was the only one worth
considering, but that really isn't the case any more.

I think SR is a different case - it's part of PostgreSQL, so certainly
should be supported as makes sense.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgadmin-support by date

Next:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-01-19 21:56:52
Subject: Re: pg_listener table errors with slony
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-01-19 21:40:55
Subject: Re: pg_listener table errors with slony

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group