> -----Original Message-----
> >> 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 :-(

I just want it to work :)

> > 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 :-).

It seems I'm confusing myself and everyone else around me at the moment
:)

Ok lets have a go at explaining.

I have to two databases 'provision' and 'order' there are no
relationships/keys between the two. From your definition of cluster, I
_think_ I mean that there is cluster called 'foo' and there are two
slony 'sets' - id = 1 (provision), and id = 2 (order).

Is the right approach?


Cheers
Jase