<p><br>
On Nov 12, 2011 1:54 PM, "Guillaume Lelarge" <<a href="mailto:guillaume@lelarge.info">guillaume@lelarge.info</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:14 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:<br>
> > [...]<br>
> > Does anyone feel strongly about this? If not, then my inclination is<br>
> > to have just two behaviours:<br>
> > a) Run the script on ALL nodes, as a default behaviour<br>
> > b) Run on a specified list of nodes, e.g. - EXECUTE ONLY ON='2,3,4'<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> I don't feel strongly about it, but I guess having a and b are enough. c<br>
> may be hard to code, will be cumbersome, and for no real value.</p>
<p>I'm most keenly concerned about the "cumbersome" part, actually. That would establish c) as a clear anti-feature.</p>
<p>But that's assuming clumsiness.</p>
<p>Let's consider (loosely, I'm not consulting docs to make this up)</p>
<p>Execute script (event node=5, script='/tmp/Foo.slonik', only on sets ='1,4');</p>
<p>Or<br>
.... only on set=1);</p>
<p>That's neither necessarily *huge* implementation effort nor horribly clumsy.</p>
<p>Zero additional effort has its merits, but that's not enough to rule out the couple ideas above.</p>
<p>I suppose I'm "against" c) more out of not wanting to add more options for people to puzzle through than are necessary.</p>
<p>On reflection, there's some complication to log shipping tests, but I don't think that depends on whether c) gets added or not. Rather, we need a test to validate that log shipping gets the DDL iff the node feeding log shipping was on the executor list. No real logic difference whether that node was:<br>
I. Subscribing to the set (c), or<br>
II. In the "execute only on" node list. </p>
<p>That's not an argument pro or con, rather a "let's not forget needful testing" aside. <br></p>
<p>> > Though I'm ready to argue "but if you don't know what your set of<br>
> > nodes are, I think you're in deep, deep trouble..."<br>
><br>
> Exactly my thought.</p>
<p>So I'm not crazy, always good to know! :-)</p>
<p>Glad to get feedback, thanks!<br>
</p>