Christopher Browne wrote:
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
> 
>> I created new makefiles for slony_funcs and xxid using the contrib 
>> infrastructure, which makes them win32 compatible. IMHO the attached 
>> versions should replace the current ones.
>>
>> After some short tests, Slony-q 1.0.5 seems to be able to replicate 
>> with win32 servers using those modules correctly.
> 
> 
> I hate to say this, but while it's nice to have the "proof of concept," 
> I'd oppose putting this into the 1.0.x tree.  I'd much rather see it go 
> into CVS HEAD / version 1.1.  Version 1.1 has a substantially different 
> Configure/build system (which should make it MUCH easier to keep some 
> separation from the PG sources!), and it's the "more experimental" 
> place, so that Win32 support fits better there.

I wouldn't call linking some contrib like modules using well known 
mechanisms experimental. However, is there some time schedule for 1.1?

> 
>> The slon process currently refuses to link, the thread lib seems to be 
>> the problem.
> 
> 
> I'd be inclined to keep the patch out 'til this is addressed ;-).

I don't see any depencency.

> 
>> Apparently slonik uses fork(), which would make porting it much more 
>> expensive. I won't spent more time on that, pgAdmin will do that anyway.
> 
> 
> Somehow, I don't think Windows users would be too keen on the "little 
> language" way of doing things of which slonik is a nice expression...
> 
> Taking that a step further...
> 
> The "good" way to use Slonik is to use other languages to 
> generate/modify slonik scripts, whether that be via:
> 
> 1.  Using m4 to rewrite bits of a slonik script (I love the way that 
> idea makes certain people feel ill ;-))
> 
> 2.  Embedding slonik scripts as 'templates' inside shell scripts
> 
> 3.  Writing Pearl scripts (or perhaps some more popular language 
> starting with the letter "P"; yes, I intended that spelling ;-)) that 
> generate slonik scripts as stdout output
> 
> Those are all pretty much anathema to the way things are done on 
> Windows, with the result that it seems pretty reasonable for there to be 
> Another Way on Windows.

For me, the official api to slony is the bunch of sl_xxxxx functions. 
I'd never try to code access postgres via piping or whatever to psql, 
whether on win32 or not.

> It would be nice to see a graphical "control tool", particularly if it 
> also runs on Unix...

Try pgAdmin snapshots... feedback welcome.

Regards,
Andreas