I'd have to say that, in general, this sounds like a preferable 
direction for development.

-tfo

On Oct 15, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:

> A Problem Observed:
>
>  If there are a significant number of Slony-I clusters being managed,
>  which have the potential to move around (e.g. - if server names
>  change, or are repurposed), it is pretty easy for the node
>  "numbering" to get pretty confusing.
>
>  One approach would be to have "node 1" be the first one set up, 2
>  being the second, and so forth.
>
>  Furthermore, there is no way to renumber things after the fact.  If
>  the "logical name" of a node changes, there is still no way to change
>  what amounts to a "physical" node number.
>
> A Possible Solution
>
>  We could add, to sl_node, a field called "no_name," which would be a
>  unique field containing a string to represent the name of the node.
>
>  This would not interrupt any of the existing usages of node numbers;
>  it would mean that Slonik scripts should be able to be written to
>  refer to "NODE NAME" instead of a "node number."
>
>  Assignment of names to nodes would involve a new slonik event,
>  NAME_NODE, which has two parameters, the ID number, and the new name,
>  and which 'broadcasts' this name out everywhere.