Thanks very much for the help everyone!  I'm going to get rid of node 1
and adopt a new node/set numbering scheme.



Christopher Browne said:
> Tim Goodaire wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 05:32:43PM -0400, Jim Archer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi All...
>>>
>>>Is there any requirement about how nodes are numbered?  I see that there
>>>is a requirement that there be a node 1 (although the FAQ says there
>>> does
>>>not really) but I'm wondering if I can number them like 1, 101, 201, 202
>>>and so on.  I am thinking that I can create a scheme where 1xx nodes are
>>>in one city, 2xx in another, 3xx in yet another and so on.
>>>
>>>Do I really need a node 1?  If not, I would start at 101.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can number them any way that you want and you don't need a node
>>1 in your cluster. If you decide to not have a node 1, you should note
>> that
>>the event node parameter for many slonik commands defaults to node 1, so
>>you'll have to specify event node if you don't have a node 1.
>>
>>
> It actually seems somewhat preferable to NOT have a node 1 in the
> cluster, as that reduces the degree of "magic" that takes place.
>
> That is, events do not "magically" appear on node 1...
>
> I think the "100 series for City A, 200 series for City B" approach is
> an excellent one.
>
> Internally at Afilias, we have commonly have set numbers based on the
> numbers assigned by our ticketing system.  That way, if you wonder what
> replication set 32744 is about, you can search for ticket #32744 and
> find all the discussion surrounding why that replication set was created.
>
> Americans might find it convenient to use zip codes as a "geographic
> location surrogate" :-)
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>