On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:51:39 +0200, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'd like to offer my 0.02? regarding this subject: > > 1) I think the whole wrap-slonik-with-perl approach is generally wrong > -- what I would really like to see is that slonik itself would be > modified so that it became more interactive client, like psql. Now I > don't know anything about how slonik works, and I don't even know if my > suggestion is feasible, but I think it would be the most simple and > effective way to control slony. For example, you could have slonc -d > <clustername> and then execute any commands necessary (I agree with Mark > Stosberg with the naming issue, slonc is better than slonik). Also slonc > could have -f switch for files etc. > slonik isn't designed to be an interactive command line shell, and more on that, i don't believe slonik's syntax as well (correct me if i'm wrong ;) I don't see how that would be more user friendly? However, an interactive slonc mode sounds interesting.... > 2) In my opinion slony could have a better monitoring/maintaining > interface. Many of the recent posts at the list have been dealing with > this issue. For example with the slonc-approach explained above, you > could have slonc --ping <clustername>, which would "ping" all nodes in a > cluster. Yeah, integrating that into a library is one of the issues we have to solve. > Also, it would be great if slonik could guarantee that if a > command is executed at one node, it is executed at all nodes -- like a > slonik transaction. How is that going to work? The only possible solution that comes to my mind offhand is to use 2PC, but i couldn't imagine how that would fit into slony's architecture? [...] Bernd _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
