"Tang, Jason" <jason.tang at teamuk.telstra.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> "Tang, Jason" <jason.tang at teamuk.telstra.com> writes:
>> > Would I be assuming correct that a node can belong to more than one
>> > cluster. It would mean I just have to call slonik twice with
> commands
>> > describing a different clustername, but can reuse the node ids?
>> 
>> That seems right, yes.
>
> Excellent! :)
>
>> I don't think anyone has tried it, so you may uncover new ground, and
>> new problems.
>
> I was afraid you'd say that.

It doesn't mean it won't work :-).  Just that you might find new edge
cases :-(.

>> What I would be concerned about is that this provides more
>> opportunities for locks/blocks/deadlocks as you'll have more slon
>> processes connecting in concurrently.
>> 
>> I guess I haven't thought of a case yet where it would "seem wise"
>> to do this.
>
> Hmm.. maybe I should explain why I think this is the way to do
> it. I'm obviously open to comments and suggestions. I have two
> databases both completely unrelated, reading the docs it kind of
> hinted that if they're unrelated then they should be different
> clusters. Or could I put both dbs under one cluster?

Hmm...  It seems as though may be running into a conflict of meanings
of the term "cluster."

- With PostgreSQL, a "cluster" is a set of databases associated with a
single backend (e.g. - associated with one postmaster process, all
accessible at one port).

- With Slony-I, a "cluster" is a set of databases participating in
replication.  They will normally each be associated with a different
postmaster process, and are probably running on different hosts.

The two usages of "cluster" are distinct, but I suspect you may be
mistaking one for the other...

Could you elaborate on what databases you are thinking about
replicating?  That may help us get around terminology troubles :-).
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","ca.afilias.info"
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 673-4124 (land)