On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:54:51AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > i really think there should be better way of handling schema
> > modifications - execute script is very unfriendly. and, as it seems
> > - in some cases it simply doesn't work :(
> It would work if you weren't trying to use the table.  
> If you have a "better way of handling schema modifications" that will
> actually work, please propose it.

i dont have. the problem i see is that bringing the database down to add
a simple column is not really acceptable.

why cant slony simply ignore "v" parts of trigger argument?

after all - insert/update/delete happens trigger *knows* the structure
of the table the event took place on.

so, sorry - but i really dont see the point in insisting to stop
production database to add some secondary, non-key, field.

depesz

-- 
quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a
highly paid DBA.  here's my CV!" :)
http://www.depesz.com/ - blog dla ciebie (i moje CV)