Steve Simms wrote:

>Is some or all of this useful?  If I offer similar changes to other files in
>this directory, are they likely to be committed?
>  
>
These all seem like reasonable changes, so I have indeed committed them 
into CVS HEAD.

What would be nice to add would be some more detailed documentation in 
"adminscripts.sgml".

Yes indeed, if you offer similar changes, I'm entirely likely to accept 
them.  I drafted up these scripts because they seemed useful, and put in 
an initial set of options and configuration that seemed useful.  Making 
them nicer is absolutely a good thing.

Between holidays, flu, and other urgent things going on at work, I 
haven't had too much time to touch Slony-I the last little while; I'll 
hopefully get busier soon, more with "engine" stuff.  I'm very pleased 
to see changes come in to these scripts; that's a clear sign that 
someone else cares enough that they're using them and are thinking hard 
enough about it that they want better.

I can foresee one fairly massive set of changes forthcoming; if/when I 
can get Slonik support for node names, many of the scripts will need to 
get modified to support that.  At that point, there would be the option 
of having each node have a symbolic name, and addressing them that way, 
rather than via potentially cryptic numbers.  Numbers aren't cryptic if 
there's just "node 1" and "node 2", but if there are 5 nodes, fiddling 
with numbers can get painful...