Re: Support for Slony 2.0?

Why don't we have a wizard-type facility to generate a Slonik script,
rather than calling the "bare-metal" functions ourselves? That could
potentially be much more useful. The reason that the existing
facilities are a bit of a chore to use when you get past a couple of
nodes is that paths and listens have to be individually managed, and
the number involved increases quadratically with respect to the number
of nodes. In other words, it's a GUI analogue of writing a Slonik
script, as opposed to a higher level facility that usefully abstracts
details away.

I could imagine this really helping with complicated Slony setups
involving daisy-chaining.

--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan