> 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.
I suppose it's a quite acceptable solution. And it is much better than
nothing.

>> "CREATE TABLE a(a INTEGER); ALTER TABLE a ADD COLUMN b INTEGER;"
> It succeeds in psql because psql will split this into two separate
PQexec() calls.
Now it's clean, thanks.
So, maybe extract an SQL splitting code from psql sources and use it? Seems
it contains no bugs.


On 8/31/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> --
> #=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
> #=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D JanWieck at Yahoo.com #
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20070831/=
01046738/attachment.htm