-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jérôme Jouanin a écrit :
> Because Slony documentation warns : /"Reasonable,"// in this context, is
> on the order of a dozen servers. If the number of servers grows beyond
> that, the cost of communications increases prohibitively, and the
> incremental benefits of having multiple servers will be falling off at
> that point./
> Moreover, I think a remote site could not have the same level of network
> availability than a LAN, because of external constraints. And I think
> that isolation is preferable in this case.
> Isn't it ?
> J

Maybe you could have a remote replication cluster whom master only knows and
communicate with your major replication master.

You could then have something like :

1
\- 11
   \- 113
   \- 114
   \- 115
\- 21
   \- 211
   \- 212

And just let 21 know about 1. 211 and 212 would only know about 21.

That could be a way to not let inter-node communication speed down your
replication.

Best regards,
- --
Stéphane Schildknecht
PostgreSQLFr : http://www.postgresql.fr

Venez nous rencontrer le 4 octobre lors du plus important événement
PostgreSQL francophone : http://www.pgday.fr

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI2ltsA+REPKWGI0ERAsqSAKC1meZkDKVirS+6h6+U+5RwwgiosACgvh5a
ySI2HAlLipQ7d+QpO9JsbYY=
=1rn1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----