On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm tempted to note that, if even one of the principal developers has > to couch his remark that way, we maybe need some test case proofs one > way or the other. Vick, care to oblige?
I'm of the opinion that if the implicit trigger still fires on the replica it is not a horrible thing. It just wastes some cycles. In my case ultimately the new table was to be added to replication. I just wanted to avoid the burden of shutting down things enough that an EXECUTE SCRIPT could successfully run. The rate of change on this DB is very high and I usually end up with some failure unless I disable sections of the app. _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
