On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> > If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas
> > himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his
> > part.
>
> Actually, Thomas said:
>
> Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It
> Thomas> is a big job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my
> Thomas> fault that you haven't seen the demo code released; I've been
> Thomas> packaging it to make it a bit easier to work with.
>
> I noted the use of the words "demo code" rather than "core code". That
> bothered (and still bothers) me, but I didn't reply at the time,
> since there was already enough heat in this thread. I'll take your
> interpretation to mean it's just a matter of semantics.
there is nothing that we are developing at this date that is *core* code
... the "demo code" that we are going to be putting into contrib is a
simplistic version, and the first cut, of what we are developing ... like
everything in contrib, it will be hack-on-able, extendable, etc ...
> I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support
> replication. Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I
> have a feeling the approach may not be the one I was hoping for.
this is where the 'confusion' appears to be arising .. there are no
*patches* ... anything that will require patches to the core server will
almost have to be put to the open source or we hit problems where
development continues without us ... what we are doing with replication
requires *zero* patches to the server, it is purely a third-party
application ...