On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Steve Singer <steve at ssinger.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, David Rees wrote:
>> For some reason I thought this was possible, but I'm running into
>> problems.
>>
>> 3 nodes (2 pg 8.4, one 9.0) all running slony 2.1.2.
>> The same database schema is on all 3 nodes.
>> Set 1 consists of all tables in the database - node 2 subscribes to
>> set 1 from node 1.
>> Set 2 consists of a subset of the tables in the database - node 3
>> subscribes to set 2 from node 2.
>
> Why don't you put your subset of tables in set 2, the rest of the tables in
> set 1.  Then
>
> subscribe set(set id=1, provider=1,provider=2)
> subscribe set(set id=2, provider=1,provider=2)
> subscibe set(set id=2,provider=2,receiver=3)
>
> You can't have the same table in multiple sets, but a node can subscribe to
> multiple sets.

Thanks - after some playing around (tried a separate cluster which
didn't work - no changes were propagated to node 3.

There are some foreign keys which exist on node 1/2 which would cross
the 2 sets (node 3 doesn't have those foreign keys) - are there any
issues with consistency or will all changes to the database still be
committed in the same order as they occurred on the originating node?

For example, table 1 is in set 1 and table 2 is in set 2 and table 1
has a foreign key that refers to table 2.

Changes that occur on the origin node 1 which will be the same for set
1/2 will obviously be fine, but is it possible for an event to be
committed out-of-order on node 2?

Thank you!

Dave