On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:30:59AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> It sounds to me that you have some requirement that the transaction be
> guaranteed complete before moving to a subsequent step.  To me, that says
> you should be using 2-phase commit, no Slony.  I'd be curious to hear your
> justification for spending so much effort trying to make Slony do something
> it was never intended to do when you have a system that _does_ what you need.

Also, I'm not convinced that the proposed alteration will achieve
what is desired: it looks to me like there are visibility issues with
the proposal.  I haven't the foggiest idea whether they'd affect its
usability, though: I haven't worked it through, on the grounds that
(as Chris already pointed out) this is an unacceptable overhead to
get a poorly-conceived feature that depends on assumptions we ought
not to be willing to make.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."	
		--Bruce Schneier