Thread: Slony schemas
I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under there. Any objections to this? //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of > the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under > there. > > Any objections to this? Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-) //Magnus
On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of > > the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under > > there. > > > > Any objections to this? > > Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-) Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are. /D
Dave Page wrote: > On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of >>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under >>> there. >>> >>> Any objections to this? >> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-) > > Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial > name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are. Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)". Seems sensible enough? //Magnus
On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of > >>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under > >>> there. > >>> > >>> Any objections to this? > >> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-) > > > > Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial > > name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are. > > Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)". > Seems sensible enough? Yup. /D
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of >> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under >> there. >> >> Any objections to this? > > Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-) > +1 Seems a great idea to me :) -- Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com