On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:50 +0100, Philippe Ferreira wrote:
>   
> >>I was thinking about the eventual corruption of a database, not of
> >>PostgreSQL.
> >>If a database happens to be corrupted, only this one need failover. In
> >>the case of a huge database,
> >>everything is concerned by the failure (and by the failover
> >>procedure !), which is a pain...
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I see. The reasonable thing to do is have each users worth of tables
> >replicated independently using multiple sets. Sets work individually and
> >can be failed over or replicated independently of each-other.
> >  
> >
> Ok. I didn't know that it was possible to do this with sets !

You can move around the master for a specific set but as Chris reminds
me failover itself is a global operation (performed only when the
original DB is no longer available).

> But, is it possible to have tables with the same name in different 
> schemas ? 

Sure. Slony always uses the fully qualified name of abc.table and
bcd.table.

> And what about the migration to another server ? Is it posible to 
> reconfigure a set to point to another slave node ??

Server side, yes. That is what MOVE SET is for.

You will need to figure out how to get the database clients to connect
to the other database yourself.

--