Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thinking about index creation time doesn't make sense, as long as we > still need a dump/restore cycle to setup replication. And even then, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > that operational issue has nothing to do with the question of hiding > the newly generated index or not.
Let me note that one of the design criteria for Slony-I was to explicitly NOT have such a requirement. Making the assumption that it *is* acceptable to disrupt operations for the duration of a dump/restore cycle is certain to limit interest in a replication system. A most pointed case where that will cause heartburn of the "I refuse to use this" sort is if that disruption needs to take place when recovering from the failure of a node. That sort of disruption is certainly counterproductive to the usual goal of replication enhancing system availability. Maybe I am misreading you; I rather hope so. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxfinances.info'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #145. "My dungeon cell decor will not feature exposed pipes. While they add to the gloomy atmosphere, they are good conductors of vibrations and a lot of prisoners know Morse code." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
