On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Tignor, Tom wrote:

>
> 	Hello Steve and Slony-I,
> 	After much discussion, Akamai has decided to assign copyright for the changes discussed here to me. I'm now contributing the changes as myself. Please find the work for the previous changes consolidated and attached as one "options" patch. The other issues discussed were also addressed. Please take another look when time allows. What would be the next steps here?
> 	Thanks,
>
> 	Tom    (

I did see this, I haven't yet had time to look at the patches.
It is on my list.



>
>
> On 2/3/18, 4:15 PM, "Steve Singer" <steve at ssinger.info> wrote:
>
>    On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Tignor, Tom wrote:
>
>    >    compatibility_v2.2.patch
>    >
>    >    My understanding of this patch is so that you slon for any 2.2.x version to
>    >    be able to connect and replicate against a backend database with any other
>    >    2.2.y version (where x and y can be, but are not required to be equal).
>    >
>    > ttignor – Yes, that’s the intention and I believe the exact effect.
>    > Specifically, we’re upgrading our slony1-dependent services from
>    > slony1-2.2.4 to slony1-2.2.6. The upgrade process we’ve verified requires
>    > a mixed mode environment for a limited period of time (a few days). I
>    > chose “2.2.x” arbitrarily. We could achieve what we need with more
>    > specific criteria, or a config option, or a combination of the two.
>    > --------
>
>    How do you feel about instead having an option to disable the slony version
>    check.
>
>    My concern with saying all 2.2.x versions are compatible or even that
>    certain minor/patch versions are compatible is the cross version testing
>    load it puts on slony maintainers and how it might restrict things in the
>    future.
>
>    If instead we just provide a option to disable the version check users can
>    use this option as they see fit.
>
>
>
>    >
>    > A few things on the specific patch
>    >
>    >    +++ slony1-2.2.6/src/slon/dbutils.c     2017-12-22 08:08:33.027322631 -0500
>    >    @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>    >       *
>    >       *     Copyright (c) 2003-2009, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>    >       *     Author: Jan Wieck, Afilias USA INC.
>    >    + *      Copyright (C) 2017 - Akamai Technologies, Inc
>    >       *
>    >       *
>    >       * ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    >    @@ -418,7 +419,8 @@
>    >
>    >    We don't normally list contributors in the copyright section. The copyright
>    >    to PostgreSQL global development group is intended to cover all
>    >    contributors.
>    >
>    > ttignor – I’ve gone a few rounds on this with our opensource group. As I understand the issues, there is a choice to either maintain or assign away the Akamai copyright for the code I wrote.  Per our previous discussion, we’re maintaining the Akamai copyright. This is accomplished by header comments and/or some meta-data in the patch. If the header comment is a problem, then the patch meta-data becomes essential. If slony1-hackers can agree on exactly what copyright changes are needed, I can take them back to Akamai opensource.
>    > --------
>    >
>    > So for the pg_home patch.
>    > …
>    >  #else
>    > +       char *pgHome = getenv("PG_HOME");
>    > +       if (pgHome) {
>    > +         strncpy(share_path, pgHome, MAXPGPATH-1);
>    > +         share_path[MAXPGPATH-1] = '\0';
>    > +         strncat(share_path, "/share", MAXPGPATH-1-strlen(pgHome));
>    > +       } else {
>    >         strcpy(share_path, PGSHARE);
>    > +       }
>    >
>    >
>    > The above code only gets compiled in if PGPORT is not defined/present at
>    > build time.  Is that your intention,  or do you want PG_HOME to take
>    > precendence even if pgport is present?
>    >
>    > snprintf(share_path,"%s/share",pgHome,MAXPGPATH-1);
>    >
>    > Would the above code be clearer? (I haven't tested/tried to compile above)
>    > but trying to do this in one line?
>    >
>    > ttignor – Reviewing the changes, the HAVE_PGPORT clause is marked with a comment “We need to find a share directory like PostgreSQL.”. That seemed like something I shouldn’t override with a customization. Re: snprintf, that seems like a good improvement. I see snprintf can also truncate output, so I’ll need to account for that as well with a rewrite.
>    > --------
>    >
>    > 	More thoughts from Steve or others? Keep them coming.
>    >
>    > 	Tom    (
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>
>
>