On 6/3/2010 4:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If you want to fork Postgres and add it, go ahead, but if the community has to maintain the code and document it, we care.
That comment was rather unprofessional. I think the rest of us still try to find the best solution for the problem, not kill the discussion. You may want to rejoin that effort.
I care about an efficient, low overhead way to get a certain information, that is otherwise extremely difficult, expensive and version dependent to get.
I care about cleaning up more of the mistakes, made in the original development of Slony. Namely using hacks and kluges to implement details, not supported by a current version of PostgreSQL. Londiste and Slony made a good leap on that with the txid data type. Slony made another step like that with 2.0, switching to the (for that very purpose developed and contributed) native trigger configuration instead of hacking system catalogs. This would be another step in that direction and we would be able to unify Londiste's and Slony's transport mechanism and eliminating the tick/sync kluge.
Care to explain what exactly you care about? Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
