On Thursday 23 November 2006 11:46 am, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I appreciate your efforts to come up with hooks.
Thank you. :-)
> But as I've already
> stated, I'm not ready to settle down for concrete hooks for Postgres-R
> (8), so I probably can't help.
Sure, I know that you don't like hooks.
I just suggested that we should compare *interfaces* to configure replication
(i.e. variable names, grammar, etc), since it looks like we have a bunch of
different syntaxes to achieve the same.
It might turn out that there is no common ground, but it is worth trying it.
> I'd better like to work together in other areas, for example, what do
> you use for testing? I've read that the Sequoia people use their
> home-grown (and closed source) test suite. I'm about to write the third
> generation of my own test suite...
It is somewhat difficult to share a test-suite if we have to maintain multiple
versions of the code that sets up the replicated db.
See the point? ;)
> > The worst outcome of this would be that we all
> > end up with smaller patches to maintain...
>
> Do you really maintain patches? I'm maintaining a source tree and I'd
> like to keep it that way, as of now.
We do maintain a patch, as you do, unless you have forked from mainline for
good. Using a good revision control system helps (we use Cannonical's Bazaar,
BTW), but does not fundamentally change the problem.
The smaller the diff, the better.
--
Jose Orlando Pereira
