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.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
