Jan Wieck wrote: > On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Jan Wieck wrote: > >> On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It > >> > sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well > >> > for us. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> > Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was > >> > important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well. > >> > >> You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony > >> implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing > >> something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department, > >> and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger > >> backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly > >> how it corrupted my system catalog". > > > > No, I _now_ understand the use case, but when the patch was posted, the > > use case was missing. I would like to see a repost with the patch, and > > a description of its use so we can all move forward on that. > > Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be > resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can > certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the > same from everyone.
No, I am asking only this time because I feel there was too much disconnect between the patch and the extensive replication discussion that few community members would see the connection. I would also like to know what your new features does for each supported option. I have not seen that spelled out yet at all. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
