On July 6, 2007 09:12 am, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:20:35AM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > disfavor by using shell expression substution etc, I have a feeling that
> > there are a fair number of people exploring slony who are not as familiar
> > with the world of shell as they ought to be to inorder to understand what
> > is going on in here.
>
> I think that's possibly true.
>
> > I think we would be better off using the define and
> > include features to make this all a bit more end user
> > friendly/understandable.   Thoughts?
>
> I also think that _might_ make things better, although it's by no
> means plain to me that someone who doesn't understand shell
> substitution will understand define and include features, either.

Ther's less need for escaping/quoting and the like using the defines than 
there is in shell.

Also by moving to the includes/defines I think it will create a better best 
practices example.  I've run into many an occasion where because the example 
uses shell and heredoc style notation, that people try and munge their 
production replication scripts into that format and get really baffled when 
it parse errors, or otherwise dosn't work.



>
> I think the _real_ problem lies elsewhere: the administration
> functions for Slony remain extremely hacky.  I suspect we need
> something much shinier to make this easy to use.  The problem I have
> in suggesting how to do that is that _I_ find command line tools
> easier (I type this from a Mac with at least 6 terminal windows open,
> and three or four Aquamacs windows to boot).  Probably someone with a
> stronger UI leaning would be more helpful.  Anyone?

Agreed we probabbly need something shiny,  there is always pgadminIII.  But 
along this line PostgreSQL does not provide anything more shiny to the end 
user than psql, granted it's very polished.

>
> A

-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Command Prompt, Inc.
+1.503.667.4564 X 102
http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997