On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I believe Slony fails at this because it is
> > trigger-based and simply cannot detect DDL changes.
>
> No, there were in fact alternatives (like, for instance, patching the
> back end code). But that was undesirable for the reason I note
> above.
Curiously enough, that does not conflict with anything I wrote. I am,
clearly, not wrong: A deliberate decision was made not to patch
PostgreSQL with the hooks Slony would need to support DDL changes;
therefore, since it relies purely on triggers, it cannot detect DDL
changes.
Alexander.
