I'm not sure why you can't do this.  I.e. you have it so that it works
like this now:

Provider -=< 4 Subscriber

In my version you'd have:

Provider -=< Subscriber / Provider -=< Subscribers 1-8

Or something like that.  SLAVES 2-8 would still have all the same data,
they would just get it from SLAVE1, and SLAVE1's primary job would be to
be intermediate holder of the data.  If you needed more slaves, you
might have to set up a kind of tree.

All of slony would have this problem as would any replication system
like it, because each subscriber expects to get its data straight from
the provider, which in this case, you've got as the single machine at
the front.

Is there some technical reason why my methodology won't work, or is this
a religious issue?

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 13:26, Andrew And wrote:
>  
>  
>  In my situation I can?t do this. I need to use 1 master and 4 or 8
> slaves.
>  
>  I am using slony 1.2.0 version, this version has problem?
> 
>  
> 2006/11/7, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe at g2switchworks.com>: 
>         On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 10:03, Andrew And wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >  I am with a lot of use of the CPU. 
>         >  My master has 70% CPU with 4 slaves. What could I do to my
>         master not
>         > use a lot of CPU?
>         
>         Replicate to one single slave, then have the other slaves
>         replicate off
>         of that one.  I.e. make it a "middle man" to the other
>         servers. 
>