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