On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:18:57 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 15 October 2012 19:19, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I think Robert is right that if Slony can't use the API, it is unlikely > > any other replication system could use it. > > I don't accept that. Clearly there is a circular dependency, and > someone has to go first - why should the Slony guys invest in adopting > this technology if it is going to necessitate using a forked Postgres > with an uncertain future?
Well. I don't think (hope) anybody proposed making something release worthy for slony but rather a POC patch that proofs the API is generic enough to be used by them. If I (or somebody else familiar with this) work together with somebody familiar with with slony internals I think such a POC shouldn't be too hard to do. I think some more input from that side is a good idea. I plan to send out an email to possibly interested parties in about two weeks... Regards, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
