On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Steve Singer <ssinger@ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>
> Since your discussing slony support I'll add my my personal thoughts (I
> can't say if the other Slony developers feel the same way).
>
> If your going to continue to have pgadmin change a slony cluster then I
> think pgadmin should be issuing commands by invoking slonik as a sub-process
> and not by calling the slony stored procedures directly.
>
> My thinking is
>
> 1) The API for the stored procedures has been known to change both between
> major releases and minor ones, while the syntax of slonik commands has
> mostly stayed the same.
>
> 2) In a number of cases slonik does more than just call a stored procedure
> (ie FAILOVER) and with 2.1 this has increased both because for most commands
> need to have obtained a lock on 'sl_event_lock' as the first command in a
> transaction (therefore before any stored procedures have been obtained) and
> to take advantage of the 'wait for' logic in 2.1
Hi Steve,
Chris and I had a similar conversation at pgcon. Aside from the huge
amount of rewriting that would involve, it would also mean we'd have
to add a dependency on Slonik on the client, which could be a real
pain for the user (for example, none of the Slony installers that I
know of will currently install unless they can find a database server
on the local machine).
Given the lack of people complaining that it doesn't work on 9.0, I'm
far more inclined to remove the Slony support altogether I'm afraid.
It seems pretty clear noone is really using it.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company