> Christopher Browne wrote:
>> This might be called the "too many 1's" release :-)
>
> Neither the bug fix for the wrong default value of con_timestamp is in
> cvs, nor ignoring disabled nodes (which isn't discussed completely so
> far).

The *actual* bug relating to the timestamp was, in fact, addressed; it
wasn't where you reported it to be.

See CVS logs for src/slon/remote_worker.c, with particular reference to
revision 1.89.  That is the bug fix.

As for the "disabled nodes" part, I never saw any response to the
questions I asked concerning why pgadmin was creating these nodes rather
than creating additional tables to store administrative information.

Creating invalid nodes strikes me as the wrong way to do things.

You're evidently looking for some nodes to be treated specially as far as
sl_listen is concerned; it is by no means obvious that this is anywhere
near the only place where your intended usage of nodes would require
modifying functionality.  I would expect implications for sl_event and
sl_confirm, as well as a need to substantially revise the cleanup thread.

With that load of uncertainty that has neither been discussed nor thought
through, there is NO WAY that I'm modifying functionality in the way
proposed at this point in time.

It will absolutely NOT happen in the "stable" branch; that would be both
reckless and risky, which represent the two LAST things that users of
enterprise replication software want thrust upon them.

> Is 1.1.1 fixed? If not, we won't be able to support 1.1 with pgadmin.

Do you mean "Is that the only release of 1.1.1 that there's going to be?"

If so, the answer is "You bet."

If some well-documented bug (and what you have outlined is NOT that)
emerges, that might lead to 1.1.2.  (Though I'd fight to try to get
1.1.1.1 :-) if I could!)

As you mentioned, your notion of ignoring disabled nodes has not yet been
"discussed completely."  Nothing ought to be implemented on that front
until the matter has been discussed in considerably more detail.  It
doesn't make sense to try to implement it until there's a much clearer
idea of what "it" actually is.

I don't know that the idea is yet clear enough to make it plausible that
attendant changes would go into version 1.2, let alone 1.1.