Christopher Browne wrote:
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I looked at Slony, which seems to be a current favourite -but I
>>couldn't get it working on my database (claimed my tables didn't have
>>relevant keys - which they do). Slony-I had almost non-existent
>>documentation which I always find prety unacceptable unless everything
>>goes very smoothly..
>
>
> I updated the copy of the documentation that I keep online (URL below)
> to reflect the latest CVS updates just yesterday. I have to say
> "nonsense!"
>
> There are things I would like to be better documented, but the notion
> that the documentation is "almost nonexistent" is just nonsense. And
> the problem you describe is indeed discussed in the documentation.
>
> Admittedly, it is not all in the version 1.0.5 tarball, but that's
> because a lot of it was written after that release.
Nonsense? hmmmmmmmm
Without wanting to be hyper-critical, documentation that's hidden isn't
a whole lot of use. The link in your email to
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
does indeed seem to have some more documentation, but why isn't it
linked from the main Slony site
(http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1)?
Why is this documentation on 'Christoper B. Browns homepage rather than
the Slony web pages? The 'official' Slony documentation I had available
was at :
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1/genpage.php?howto_idx
and it *really* didn't help with the problems I had.
Having now taken a look at the documentation you reference, it's still
not wonderfully comprehensive. The problem I had was that despite the
fact that my tables had primary keys the Slony configuration refused to
recognise them. The documentation says simply that primary or candidate
primary keys are a requirements.
So - as a potential 'slony user' it is *not* nonsense that there was
negligable documentation - from my perspective it was a fact and I found
an alternative solution.
Pete
