Jan Wieck wrote: > On 11/8/2006 2:17 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> Jan Wieck wrote: >>> On 10/31/2006 6:03 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >>>> In the 1.1 branch, a number of minor bugs have been dealt with; in >>>> both branches, the following more significant changes have been made: >>> >>> These release candidates have been out for over a week now and there >>> has been literally zero feedback. Is ANYONE at all testing these at >>> all? >> There has been a bunch of feedback on the altperl tools, patches for RPM >> spec files, fixes to version numbers. Someone pointed out that one of >> the scripts in HEAD hadn't gotten into 1_2_STABLE; I fixed that. >> >> Admittedly, no comments on the MERGE SET change. > > Maybe I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean the tools and gadgets around > Slony, I meant how the replication engine itself works, what people > found when testing their failover an other maintenance procedures. How > are we supposed to tell folks that upgrading from 1.1 to 1.2 is a good > thing for production systems, if nobody has done that on their test > systems? Actually, consider that part verified.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/slony-regress.hvvhcgylh $ cat slonik.script CLUSTER NAME = slony_regress1; NODE 1 ADMIN CONNINFO = 'dbname=slonyregress1 host=localhost user=pgdba port=9472'; NODE 2 ADMIN CONNINFO = 'dbname=slonyregress2 host=localhost user=pgdba port=9472'; update functions (id=1); update functions (id=2); I just updated a 1.1.6 system to 1.2.1, as shown above, and all is working fine. It's a test instance, as opposed to anything in production, but there you go... _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
