On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:13 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 09:58 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Hi Guillaume
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> >> > Le 19/01/2011 22:33, Dave Page a écrit :
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> >> >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> >> >>> We had 1.2 support. To have 2.0, we would have to get rid of the
> >> >>> sl_trigger checks. Or was it dropped along the way of 2.0?
> >> >>
> >> >> No idea - I just recall Sachin working on compatibility, and that was
> >> >> one of/the patch he came of with.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, you're right. I now see the commit. Which means we have two bugs
> >> > on 2.0 support.
> >>
> >> What happened with this in the end? I've just run into the pg_listener
> >> bug again. I see from the thread you said you were going to work on
> >> it, but then we got side-tracked into a discussion on whether we
> >> should have slony support at all.
> >>
> >
> > I still have it on my todo list.
>
> OK, well I'm looking at the moment to see if we can do something with
> sl_nodelock as Steve suggested, in combination with pg_stat_activity.
>
> What was the other bug? I'm not sure I understand what that issue is.
>
The issue I wanted to work on is the pg_listener one. pg_listener is
available till 9.0. With the rework on the LISTEN/NOTIFY implementation
in 9.0, all calls to pg_listener fail because pg_listener isn't
available anymore. So we need to find another way to get the listener
PID.
--
Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
