>I understood that you could get away with not having paths between 
slaves, provided you >had paths to and from each slave and the master.

Ah! That is not what you originally stated. Your original query was understood to mean to not have _any_ paths. Yes, if you define the path(s) from master to slave(s), then it will work. Although I personally don;t see the benefit, unless you are talking about _many_ slaves.

Melvin Davidson 


--- On Wed, 5/5/10, John Moran <johnfrederickmoran at gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Moran <johnfrederickmoran at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] I don't want failover; Can I skip chatter  between slaves?
To: "Melvin Davidson" <melvin6925 at yahoo.com>
Cc: slony1-general at lists.slony.info
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 5:27 PM




That's kind of like saying "I want a car, but I don't want it to have an engine because
I'm never going to use the gas pedal".

If you don't have paths, it won't work. Slony needs paths to know were to send that data.

Likewise, it needs to know if the data got to the slaves, hence the "chatter".


Are you sure about that? I understood that you could get away with not having paths between slaves, provided you had paths to and from each slave and the master. The downside was that failover wouldn't work, but that's acceptable for my purposes. Why pay for something I'm not using?


Thanks,
John




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20100505/960baa8e/attachment.htm