On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 07:46:43AM -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>     Actually, as of version 1.1.5 and later, this is NOT TRUE. The danger of
>     someone making DDL changes that crosses replication sets seems
>     sufficiently palpable that slon(1) has been changed to lock ALL
>     replicated tables,whether they are in the specified replication set or
>     not.

By the way, this has always struck me as a terrible hack.  What would
be better, I think, is for there to be some dependency information
about SETs, so that we had information on what can be properly called
logically-complete sets, and information on what can be called
partial sets (which are SETs for the purposes of Slony
administration).

It ought to be possible not to lock sets that are logically disjoint
from one another.  It isn't now, and the quick and dirty answer of
locking all sets is probably safer than what went before.  That
doesn't make it ideal.  I know you had a v1 proposal for how to make
this less painful.  I was thinking that what would be nice is an
additional way to give hints to the system so that an administrator
could group tables logically even if the database doesn't have
constraints that are already imposing such rules.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
		--Alexander Hamilton