Any replicator that works the way slony does is going to have this
problem.  You've got a choke point, and it's your master server.

Are you saying you can't allocate a secured server in production right
next to the master server that does nothing but suck in data from it and
then shoves it back out to the other servers that need it?  That's the
real solution.  

You might be able to use something like pgpool to spread the load out,
but that still requires >1 server in production to do, so you're back to
the same problem you have now, if you can't have >1 production db
server.

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 16:14, Andrew And wrote:
>  
>  
>  If Slony is not good my case, Is there some another software to my
> case?
> 
>  
> 2006/11/7, Andrew And <andcop2006 at gmail.com>: 
>          
>          
>          Because my slaves are of the companys differents,
>         and one slave can?t have access to another. The slaves only
>         has access in the master.
>          
>          
>         2006/11/7, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe at g2switchworks.com>: 
>                 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.
>                 >
>         
>         
>