On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Are you saying that it doesn't matter that it is made more broken? Sorry
> if I disagree... we should be trying to fix it, not the other way
> around.
> If it's so broken, why hasn't it received any improvement? Is there
> some problem with the underl
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:33:04PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Patch applied. Thanks.
> > >
> > > > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> > > >> Attached is a patch that provides *V
That was my feeling, but the author wasn't sure about the patch either,
hence it was backed out.
---
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PRO
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Patch applied. Thanks.
> >
> > > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> > >> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
> > >> servers. I haven't tested it very w
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:47:52PM -0700, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> Anyway, it looks like it replicates the "A" table just fine, and the slaveb
> and slavec databases replicate just fine, but the "SyncID" was incremented by
> the SlaveA replication, and therefore "b" and "c" never get updated.
On Thursday 19 June 2003 07:36 pm, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
> servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at your own risk (and I
> recommend against using it in production).
Okay, I just did some more testing, and
OK, I have backed out this patch. Hopefully we can get a more complete
patch sometime.
---
Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 June 2003 08:42 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0400,
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 08:42 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Patch applied. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> > > >> Attached is a patch that
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:11:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Patch applied. Thanks.
> >
> > > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> > >> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
> > >> servers. I ha
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> > Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> >> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
> >> servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at your own risk (and I
> >> recommend aga
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patch applied. Thanks.
> Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
>> servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at your own risk (and I
>> recommend against using it in production).
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
> servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at your own risk (and I
> recommend aga
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
> Attached is a
Attached is a patch that provides *VERY* limited support for multiple slave
servers. I haven't tested it very well, so use at your own risk (and I
recommend against using it in production).
Basically, I have a central database server that has 4 summary tables inside
it replicated to a remote s
14 matches
Mail list logo
