[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       slony1-general
Subject:    Re: Slony-generated primary keys (was Re: node ID limitations (was
From:       "Brian A. Seklecki" <lavalamp () spiritual-machines ! org>
Date:       2007-03-28 14:49:41
Message-ID: 20070328104907.F6132 () arbitor ! digitalfreaks ! org
[Download RAW message or body]



http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/slony1/bugs/bugupdate.php?1658

Used gborg instead of pgfoundry since I don't see tickets on the later and 
no one else reponded.

~BAS


On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Csaba Nagy wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>>> Considering that people seem to agree that slony generated pkeys are
>>> more of a wart than a feature, why not simply deprecate the feature
>>> and remove it?
>>
>> I tend to lean that way, since I've been making it a point to ensure that
>> all our tables have primary keys.  I believe it's not a big deal to
>> create them for Slony if they don't exist, and I'd rather intelligently
>> select a primary key than have Slony add an "arbitrary" bigint field.
>> Removing that capability would certainly simply the slony code.
>>
>> However, I'm hoping to come up with an improvement that the community will
>> accept so it goes back into the tree.  My thought is that the capability
>> wouldn't be there if people weren't using it, so yanking it could cause
>> some upset.
>
> We do use here this feature (letting slony add the "arbitrary" PKs).
> It has a couple of advantages over maintaining it in our own schema.
>
> There are tables where having a PK simply does NOT make sense. Most of
> our tables do have PKs, and I fitted some of them which did not have
> with new ones specifically after we started to use slony (I even had to
> split tables in different sub-tables for this, but it was actually
> making sense), but there are a couple where I simply couldn't justify
> adding a PK...
>
> This combined with the fact that not all our data bases are replicated
> via slony but they share the same schema results in me being happy if
> slony takes care of adding the PK which is totally irrelevant to our
> application and it only suits slony... with the added benefit that it
> gets deleted once slony is uninstalled from the DB.
>
> Now if slony will not do that anymore on its own, it could be
> acceptable, if only there would be some nice GUI admin interface which I
> can tell "please replicate all my tables and do whatever it is needed to
> do so"... and get some warnings if there are BLOBs, missing PKs, etc.
> (yes I know about pgadmin and I'm using it but it's not really working
> well if you have 200 tables to replicate).
>
> Cheers,
> Csaba.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general@lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>

l8*
 	-lava (Brian A. Seklecki - Pittsburgh, PA, USA)
 	       http://www.spiritual-machines.org/

"...from back in the heady days when "helpdesk" meant nothing, "diskquota"
meant everything, and lives could be bought and sold for a couple of pages
of laser printout - and frequently were."
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
Slony1-general@lists.slony.info
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]