Dave Page wrote:
> OK, we'll aim for Tuesday then.
Yup, I'll give you a 'go'.
Um, seeing that apparently nothing I posted in the last 4 weeks to
slony-general is fixed appropriately or finally discussed, and we really
need to roll a beta quite soon, I'm afraid we'll have to fork the slony
We already discussed to include the creation scripts into pgadmin
installations to make administrator's life easier, but apparently we
*must* do that to have pgadmin working on slony 1.1.
I just tested slony cvs head, and found that creation from scratch
(using the unmodified slony scripts) will work ok, but joining will fail
with the bug reported repeatedly from enablenode_int inserting into
sl_confirm (illegal default for con_timestamp). Since I didn't test
1.1.1, this might not apply to that version, don't know so far, don't
have the time to test right now.
Second, there's still not a viable alternative how to store path
information without admin nodes. I'm running out of time now, so I'll
continue that way, we'll have to make sure that in our fork listens are
generated from enabled nodes only (AFAICS usual slonik work will never
leave un-enabled nodes, so nobody should ever notice).
To identify the version, I'll add a slonyAdminVersion() so that pgAdmin
can be sure it runs on a workable version, or recommend upgrading
(probably another case for the guru). AFAIR upgradeNode isn't
implemented yet, will do that this weekend.
In response to
pgadmin-hackers by date
|Next:||From: cbbrowne||Date: 2005-10-01 03:27:25|
|Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] Re: Ready for beta yet?|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2005-09-30 19:10:06|
|Subject: Re: Ready for beta yet?|