On Nov 12, 2011 1:54 PM, "Guillaume Lelarge" <guillaume at lelarge.info> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:14 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > [...]
> > Does anyone feel strongly about this?  If not, then my inclination is
> > to have just two behaviours:
> >   a) Run the script on ALL nodes, as a default behaviour
> >   b) Run on a specified list of nodes, e.g. - EXECUTE ONLY ON='2,3,4'
> >
>
> I don't feel strongly about it, but I guess having a and b are enough. c
> may be hard to code, will be cumbersome, and for no real value.

I'm most keenly concerned about the "cumbersome" part, actually.  That
would establish c) as a clear anti-feature.

But that's assuming clumsiness.

Let's consider (loosely, I'm not consulting docs to make this up)

Execute script (event node=5, script='/tmp/Foo.slonik', only on sets
='1,4');

Or
.... only on set=1);

That's neither necessarily *huge* implementation effort nor horribly clumsy.

Zero additional effort has its merits, but that's not enough to rule out
the couple ideas above.

I suppose I'm "against" c) more out of not wanting to add more options for
people to puzzle through than are necessary.

On reflection, there's some complication to log shipping tests, but I don't
think that depends on whether c) gets added or not.  Rather, we need a test
to validate that log shipping gets the DDL iff the node feeding log
shipping was on the executor list.  No real logic difference whether that
node was:
I. Subscribing to the set (c), or
II. In the "execute only on" node list.

That's not an argument pro or con, rather a "let's not forget needful
testing" aside.

> > Though I'm ready to argue "but if you don't know what your set of
> > nodes are, I think you're in deep, deep trouble..."
>
> Exactly my thought.

So I'm not crazy, always good to know!  :-)

Glad to get feedback, thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20111112/ee22384f/attachment.htm