Re: Slony schemas

Dave Page wrote:
> On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
>>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Any objections to this?
>> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)
>
> Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial
> name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are.

Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)".
Seems sensible enough?

//Magnus