Hi.

I think that it is contained in of the *nix version started bug hunting from version 1.2.
Then, both the versions of Windows should follow. There is a user of PostgreSQL.
The pgAdmin team at least is doing its best in the correspondence.
Therefore, I think that binary-build for a Windows user should be supplied.
I have the binary pack which can be examined here.
http://developer.pgadmin.org/~hiroshi/
I think that we wants to carry out this update timely,  if possible.....Being supplied 
from this place is desirable. 
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/slony1/
Probably, discussion should be performed there....

I want many Windows users to bug hunting..... However, It will be necessary to know 
that it is not supplied as a stable version. The following quotations are followed.

P.S)
Slony-I is very great. And I want to supply the effective scene of PostgreSQL.

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

<Quotation>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Browne" 
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:56 AM
Subject: [Slony1-general] Nudging towards 1.2...


I just checked in a change to DDL handling (EXECUTE SCRIPT) which ought
to complete its functionality for now.  (We were trying to toss the DDL
script at the event generator function simply by 'putting plain quotes
around it' which won't work if you have quotes in the script...)

With that, and the (recently added) ability to have log shipping run a
script each time it writes a SYNC, that seems to fulfil the New Features
that were desired for now.

(There's still stuff queued that's worthwhile for the future, such as
CLONE NODE, EVENT PING, SUBMIT NOTIFY, and such; none of it's *really*
vital...)

In effect, the next thing to do is to start thinking about the release
cycle for 1.2.0.

There are a number of bugs outstanding; there are 57 things that aren't
closed out.  I expect that most of those have in fact been resolved;
some are quite old, and relate to things we were trying to get fixed.

It would be a Good Thing if people started trying to test CVS HEAD
against some of the platforms. 

There are some moderately disruptive changes in the build process, as
makefiles have been modified and usage of configure options changed
somewhat, in attempt to be "more rational."  In 1.0 and 1.1, there were
autoconf options that were ignored; or used counter to expectations. 
That's liable to bust things like automated packaging (e.g. - Ports,
RPM, dpkg).  There's a net improvement, I think; it's just that some
rework will be needed with packaging tools.

It doesn't seem to me that we're ready for a release candidate, per se,
as I'm pretty sure that a tarball of CVS HEAD is a few steps away from that.

But I'm going to try to take a look in the coming week at what bug
reports I can get closed out.  And I think I'd like to produce a tarball
that's sort of a "release candidate version -1" in the next week...