On 8/30/2007 10:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:11:25PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> No, we're supposed to support the least common denominator.  If there
> isn't one, then I agree tha the user loses.  This is more or less the
> pg_dump strategy: use the latest, or die.

Which means we'd have to somehow extract the Postgres backend or psql 
parser in order to do so. Without that I don't know how to keep the two 
100 percent in sync.

>  
>> 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?
> 
> It tells me that there are too few developers.  It's not wasting
> time.  We can also decide that it's a known issue, in which case (1)
> we accept patches and (2) we have a BIG FAT WARNING in the docs about
> it.  Neither case seems to be true to me.  

Exactly. We don't have enough developers. And I truly think that we have 
much bigger fish to fry than supporting complicated comment structures.

The way I see it is that we will change our parser to simply REJECT a 
DDL script if there is any /* style comment in there at all, document it 
that way and be done with it. At least it won't allow to break 
replication any more.


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 #