On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I believe Slony fails at this because it is > trigger-based and simply cannot detect DDL changes. No, there were in fact alternatives (like, for instance, patching the back end code). But that was undesirable for the reason I note above.
Curiously enough, that does not conflict with anything I wrote. I am, clearly, not wrong: A deliberate decision was made not to patch PostgreSQL with the hooks Slony would need to support DDL changes; therefore, since it relies purely on triggers, it cannot detect DDL changes. Alexander.
