James Black wrote:

> Hello, all,
>
> Thanks for the help last week; I tracked the problem that I was having 
> merging sets to a) user error, and b) misconfigured slon daemons.  
> Adding and merging now works great, but it raises a question about set 
> ordering.  I was under the impression that ordering the tables in the 
> set was important, and a misordering would have dreadful 
> consequences.  Is this the case?  And if so, when adding tables that 
> have dependencies on tables already in the set, do we need to reorder 
> the tables?  Is a reordering even possible?
>
> Or should I not worry so much?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> jfb
>
In theory, it might be of some kind of significance in the handling of 
foreign key constraints, but those are deactivated on subscriber nodes 
anyways, so it doesn't matter what order the values come in (at least 
not as far as a table ordering is concerned).

If someone can point out a simple example of a "dreadful" consequence, 
that would be well worth hearing about.

As for being able to reorder them, no, there's not much of an option of 
that...

We're hoping for 1.1 to support naming _nodes_, so that you can largely 
ignore the node numbers, and give mnemonic identifiers; that points 
towards numeric identifiers getting less important in and of 
themselves.  Not that that directly addresses table numbers...