From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |
Date: | 2011-01-20 20:39:47 |
Message-ID: | 4D389D93.9000806@lelarge.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Le 20/01/2011 20:15, Peter Geoghegan a écrit :
> Why don't we have a wizard-type facility to generate a Slonik script,
> rather than calling the "bare-metal" functions ourselves? That could
> potentially be much more useful. The reason that the existing
> facilities are a bit of a chore to use when you get past a couple of
> nodes is that paths and listens have to be individually managed, and
> the number involved increases quadratically with respect to the number
> of nodes. In other words, it's a GUI analogue of writing a Slonik
> script, as opposed to a higher level facility that usefully abstracts
> details away.
>
> I could imagine this really helping with complicated Slony setups
> involving daisy-chaining.
>
We don't do wizards. Moreover, I'm not sure this would be really useful.
But if you want to work on it, yes, go ahead. And we'll see how it goes.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-01-20 21:28:13 | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-01-20 19:15:46 | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |