On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 13:56, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/6/2004 1:42 PM, Rod Taylor wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 13:30, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2004 1:01 PM, Brad Hilton wrote:
> >> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> >>> However, this is a serious bug since user defined tyes without any 
> >> >>> operators are of course legal in Postgres and have to be supported by 
> >> >>> Slony. I am working on a fix for it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> This is fixed in REL_1_0_STABLE and HEAD, so it will be included in the 
> >> >> upcoming version 1.0.3.
> >> > 
> >> > Thank you - it does seem to have fixed the crashes! :)
> >> > 
> >> > I'm now seeing a new issue when the initial copy starts up.  Slon logs 
> >> > this on my slave database:
> >> 
> >> Oh crap ... well, so much for using truncate instead of delete at all. I 
> >> will back out that attempt :-/
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, how do you deal with a non cascading delete, like
> > RESTRICT?
> 
> By doing some ugly catalog modifications before screwing with the data. 
> In short all the triggers and rules of a replicated table are hidden 
> while the table is subscribed (on the slave only).
> 
> > 
> > Part #2, if you deal with the above, perhaps a cascading truncate would
> > solve the issue?
> 
> There is a "trucate table foo CASCADE" ?

Well, no.  The truncate code is about 5 to 10 lines short at the moment,
but it's been on the TODO to implement one for a while now.