On 8/30/2007 2:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:49:40PM +0400, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
>> > Just because Postgres itself allows it doesn't mean that every piece of
>> > software working with Postgres must be aware of this, does it?
>> Possibly.
>> 
>> But it is too bad to completely break the replication on a syntax error in
>> DDL script, I suppose.
> 
> I have to agree with Dmitry here.  If the Postgres parser allows it,
> I think we _do_ have to be aware of it.  Slony isn't like "every
> piece of software working with Postgres", after all -- we advertise
> as being a replication engine.

You forget that Slony is also supposed to replicate across different 
Postgres versions. So what are we going to do if DDL with multiple 
nesting layers of different comment styles is supported by one, but not 
all Postgres versions inside of a Slony cluster? Somehow convert it to 
something that is understood by all?

Sorry, but Postgres supporting C-style comments in the first place is 
just plain wrong. Wasting time on shit like this while we don't find the 
time to implement MERGE, what does that tell you about a project?


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #