On Tuesday November 2 2004 8:05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> The basic objection I have is that this moves the cost of keeping
> track of the sequence from the asynchronous part, when we're
> replicating, into the main transaction line, when data is being
> transformed.  Given my experience with erserver and now Slony, I can
> say that every single additional cost you impose in the main
> transaction line will bite you later.  This is why Jan spent so much
>
> > wants to do it, etc).  But fundamentally, async notification is very
> > likely the answer to the polling inefficiencies in one form or another.
>
> I don't think anyone is disputing this; but a workable proposal is
> what's wanted, I think.  I'd be delighted to be proven wrong in
> what's above.

Fair enough.  I appreciate the rational, civil explanation.  Unfortunately, 
I have concerns and ideas to contribute, but no demonstrably workable 
proposal to go along with them.  Needs more cooking, I guess.

Ed