On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:29:56PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:44:26PM -0800, Marc Munro wrote:
> >> experts there may suggest a better solution. I have seen talk of
> >> disabling the standard slony triggers to allow this sort of thing but
> >> whether that is more or less nasty is questionable.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't think that's the question; it's more like whether it'd
> > be merely horribly nasty or likely to break in unexpected and really
> > painful ways. ;-) But the discussion around that surely should move
> > to the Slony list.
>
> It seems to me that lots of the "stuff" in Slony-I could be reapplied
> to _try_ to create an asynchronous multimaster replication system.
>
> A *major* addition would need to be some form of "conflicts queue."
>
> That's the sort of thing they have in the analagous "O-word"
> replication system.
>
> What's a non-starter is to try to reshape the Slony-I project into
> "async multimaster." That would get considerable push-back :-).
>
> But if someone decided to "fork" their own *new* project, perhaps
> starting based on one of the releases, that would an entirely
> interesting idea.
Wouldn't async multimaster make use of most all of what slony-I
currently has? ISTM that it would make life a lot easier to use one
combined project rather than two...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
