Tue Apr 26 15:00:56 PDT 2011
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] pg_upgrade with Slony replication
- Next message: [Slony1-general] pg_upgrade with Slony replication
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Rose Nancy <rnancy at afilias.info> wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for your quick reply. > The problem with changing these to type 'text' with alter table is that, > amongst my list of table using the data type "name", > I have "_oxrsaero.vactables.relname" which is a COMPOSITE TYPE and according > to the Postgres 8.3 documentation I cannot ALTER the attributes of a > COMPOSITE TYPE. > > Also I don't think that DROP and RECREATE "_oxrsaero.vactables.relname " > will be a good idea since some Slony functions might be using it. > > So any idea... Oh, it's certainly there in order to be used. I'm pretty sure I'm "at fault" for its addition, and if it were *not* referenced, it would be pretty fair to get rid of it. :-) That type is used as the structure to indicate tables that are to be vacuumed by the cleanup thread. It should be a pretty reasonable idea to drop the type and recreate it with a more suitable definition. That wouldn't disturb Slony terribly much, as it's only a slon process that would access it, and it seems likely to me that having a slon running during the pg_upgrade process would be TOTALLY disastrous! :-) I'm pretty sure slons will be down at that time! Look for the definition in the sources in src/backend/slony1_base.v*.sql; it's actually reasonably well-documented there. You'd presumably also need to drop the function TablesToVacuum(), and recreate that. I am a bit undecided as to the merits of making such a change. As Andrew observed, the "name" type is intended to be used for system datatypes; Slony tends to behave in a pretty 'system-y' way, so it's not totally "out there" for it to be using "name". But if it's a relatively minor "tweak" to have Slony use text in lieu of "name" and play better with pg_upgrade, well, there's some value to that. Seeing as how nobody has really tried to think through the implications of the change, it's not obvious that this is something we ought to be doing in any already existing branch of Slony. I'd not be too keen to "quickly shove it through" on 2.0, or even the hopefully-forthcoming-in-not-too-long 2.1.
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] pg_upgrade with Slony replication
- Next message: [Slony1-general] pg_upgrade with Slony replication
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list