> -----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.

> 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?

Jase