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

Re: Slony schemas

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Slony schemas
Date: 2008-01-14 21:08:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
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?


In response to


pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-14 21:23:27
Subject: Re: Slony schemas
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-14 20:46:52
Subject: Re: Slony schemas

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group