I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under there.

Any objections to this?

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
> there.
>
> Any objections to this?

Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
> > the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
> > there.
> >
> > Any objections to this?
>
> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)

Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial
name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are.

/D

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Dave Page wrote:
> On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
>>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Any objections to this?
>> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)
>
> Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial
> name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are.

Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)".
Seems sensible enough?

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > On 14/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
> >>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
> >>> there.
> >>>
> >>> Any objections to this?
> >> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)
> >
> > Sounds sensible to me. They should probably have a sensible artificial
> > name (like the catalogs do) so it's obvious what they are.
>
> Right now I have (for schema _cluster1): "Slony catalog (cluster1)".
> Seems sensible enough?

Yup.

/D

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I would like to move slony schemas under the Catalogs node instead of
>> the Schema node, since you're not meant to store "normal stuff" under
>> there.
>>
>> Any objections to this?
>
> Actually, let me rephrase that. Any objections *or approvals* of that? ;-)
>

+1

Seems a great idea to me


--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq