Brad Nicholson wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>   
>> * There is interest in the perl tools to keep a buffer for the general
>> community between admin and the guts of Slony.
>>
>> (cbb: Is there interest in *working on* the Perl tools? As an OSS
>> project, there is a need for volunteers. In the case of the Perl tools,
>> past volunteers have stepped away, so we kind of need new ones...)
>>     
>
> Was there any discussion as to what area the perl tools were lacking in?
>   
Not in particular, and as it was a pretty "free for all," the lack of
strictness is not something I'd consider troublesome.

As any proposals come out on the mailing list and such, people can be
more precise.

The concern expressed was specific enough, namely that there isn't
material attention going into the scripts at this time, and that
introduces a risk of "bit rot."

I was the one that created them; Steve Simms did some excellent work
making them cleaner/more orthogonal/more consistent.  And right now,
there isn't anyone paying much attention to them.

I can think of two useful enhancements that could be made to them:

a) It would be very useful to create an additional script that would
rummage through a Slony-I cluster and create a fresh slon.conf file
based on the present configuration.  Putting that into CVS/RCS would be
a further useful exercise for the reader ;-).

b) One of the "best practices" that we have discovered is to make use of
slonik 'preamble' files that get included; modifying the scripts to
generate/use a preamble file would fit nicely into the "best practice."