Le 19/01/2011 22:47, Dave Page a écrit :
> 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 don't see it that way. We don't support one over another. As you say,
we support Slony because at the time, it was the only one worth it. We
don't support the other ones because we don't have time to work on this.
It isn't a case of "Slony is better, X is crap". It's just that we lack
time (and perhaps motivation too) to add support for another one.
Actually, I would have no problem adding another one, like Londiste for
example. I don't have time to code this myself, but if someone does, I
have no problem to see his work commited.
> I think SR is a different case - it's part of PostgreSQL, so certainly
> should be supported as makes sense.
Yeah, that makes sense. But it doesn't mean we should get rid of
something working (apart from those two bugs).
In response to
pgadmin-support by date
|Next:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2011-01-19 22:38:38|
|Subject: Re: Minor UI issues for Server Properties dialog
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2011-01-19 21:47:42|
|Subject: Re: pg_listener table errors with slony|