On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:
> In response to John Moran <johnfrederickmoran at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> > Hey ... are we related?
>>
>> I live in the UK....perhaps we are long lost cousins? :-)
>
> It's possible, that side of my family has a history of being rather ...
> "friendly".
>
>> I guess that it's more a matter of politics or perception; I'd like to
>> be able to boast that our application is very robust, and can easily
>> handle server downtime (which has been our experience with Slony thus
>> far), or turning off servers when not needed. I can see how it would
>> be a bad idea to widely recommend this to slony users, because some
>> have massive databases where, if a slave is left to fall behind for
>> long enough it will literally never be able to catch up with the
>> master. I myself do not have such a large database, and hope that my
>> users can attain acceptable performance while doing this sort of
>> thing. Not that this will be a "salesman on the road" type scenario,
>> but it's a valuable thing to be able to do
>
> The big suggestion I would make here is to test aggressively.  Since
> Slony is not really intended for this sort of use, it's not tested
> against it.  As a result, there may be hidden problems that nobody has
> yet come across.  Also, if you hit problem, you're going to have some
> difficulty getting help since you're using the system in a way that
> it's not really intended for.

But the good news is that his dbs are small, so they can likely just
resubscribe semi-automagically if needs be in a minute or two.