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

Re: Support for Slony 2.0?

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Support for Slony 2.0?
Date: 2011-01-19 21:17:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
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.

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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

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


In response to


pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-01-19 21:23:49
Subject: Re: Support for Slony 2.0?
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2011-01-19 20:36:41
Subject: Re: Support for Slony 2.0?

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