Bugzilla – Bug 179
Implicit WAIT FOR EVENT
Last modified: 2011-05-04 08:48:53 PDT
You need to
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Should track (per Yehuda) some status information so that if it's waiting for a
sustained period of time, this isn't a mystery to the user or to people
Slonik commands that require inter-node coordination should check to see if all
relevant slon processes are running. Notable exceptions include STORE NODE,
Slonik should warn or error out if the slon isn't running
Controlling Implicit WAIT FOR EVENT
To support both legacy slonik scripts and new ones, the following features are
slonik should have a command line option that deactivates "auto-wait"
It may be desirable for uses to control wait behavior inside scripts, hence we
should add two slonik commands:
* activate auto wait
* deactivate auto wait
Subscribe set has the ENABLE_SUBSCRIPTION event generated by slon; this likely
needs to do some "guarding"
A branch exists for this...
Created an attachment (id=90) [details]
This is a proposed patch implementing the auto/implicit wait for described by
I have walked through the code and documentation, and have a number of patches
to propose that generally clean things up, wordsmith, and make sure things are
I don't have any semantic changes to suggest.
I'm starting up various of the tests; will report back on what I find.
Regression tests mostly worked fine, with some exceptions found in the DDL
-> % cat testResult.test.txt
I'll poke into those 3 failures to see if they are germane.
OK, running the same test against "master" gives me the same results, for the
DDL test, so I think I'll open up an issue against the regression test, but
point at this being "in pretty good shape."
By the way, I rather liked the addition of the function slonik_SubmitEvent(),
as that looks like a nice added abstraction.
(In reply to comment #6)
> OK, running the same test against "master" gives me the same results, for the
> DDL test, so I think I'll open up an issue against the regression test, but
> point at this being "in pretty good shape."
> By the way, I rather liked the addition of the function slonik_SubmitEvent(),
> as that looks like a nice added abstraction.
I think http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=137 describes the issue
you see in testddl.
Committed to master for 2.1 at