Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 6/6/2006 12:04 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> 
>>Either way, it would substantially complicate the subscription process :-(.
> 

> 
> Since we are now substantially speeding up the copy_set, I don't see how 
> Slony is more of a problem than pg_dump.

While Slony may be as fast as pg_dump now, it could be faster in some 
situations: when copying binary data, COPY is substantially slower than 
COPY BINARY. An option to advise slon to use COPY BINARY would be a 
first step, even better if this could be defined per table (and even 
better, if pgsql had a COPY option that's equally efficient for text and 
binary data).

Regards,
Andreas