On November 17, 2004 02:23 pm, Ed L. wrote:
> Would it make sense to Slony core developers to consider patching the
> REL_1_0_STABLE branch with some of the useful additions since 1.0.5,
> possibly in anticipation of a future 1.0.6?  It'd be nice to get the
> benefit of others pounding on these items...
>
> 	+ Darcy's config file stuff
	near 0 chance of this one in that I'm still not 100% happy with it as it is 
currently.
> 	+ logging pids/timestamps
	no opinion on this one eitherway.
> 	+ generate_sync_event()
> 	+ rebuiltListenEntries()?
	I believe both os these are best off still receiving more testing.

> 	+ vacuum disable flag (for use with autovac)
	minor change  I can support adding this one to -STABLE
>
> I know work is focused on 1.1, but my understanding is that using 1.1 will
> require an upgrade to yet-unreleased PostgreSQL versions due to concern
> about tg_enabled as discussed here 19-Oct-2004.  Downtime for those
> upgrades would not be feasible in many cases.  I would also like to submit
> a couple 1.0.6 patches, but don't want to bother if 1.0.6 is not going to
> happen.

Nope the design requirements of  Slony require that it doesn't depend on any 
features in pg > those found in 7.3.3, it will however make use of them if it 
can.  Having said that the tg_enable issue you reference is known, and any 
solution to the the whole check constraint problem (which I reported on that 
started that mess) will be coded with that in mind.   So in short, Slony 1.1 
will not require anything more/newer than it does now.

And yes I would think there will be a 1.0.6 release if only to support some 
cleanups mentioned above.


>
> Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general

-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com