* David Fetter <david at fetter.org> [061201 17:14]:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 02:51:38PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > ??hel kenal p??eval, R, 2006-12-01 kell 11:19, kirjutas Victoria Parsons:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have been using slony to replicate two database from a master
> > > machine to a varied number of slaves on a production system. The
> > > maximum that has been tested is 12. I have been asked how many we
> > > could get up to. From following the mailing list I have got an idea in
> > > my head of no more than about 20. This is because of the increased CPU
> > > each slon daemon uses. I know this could be increased to some extent
> > > by getting a more powerful machine for my master.
> > > 
> > > There is talk here of replicating two databases to 1024 machines. I'm
> > > pretty sure that will fall over in a big heap. Has anyone ever tried
> > > that many? I have never used the log shipping method - would that help
> > > by reducing load on the master? Also I run all slon daemons from the
> > > master server. Would it become more scalable if I moved the slon
> > > daemons to each slave in the system.
> > 
> > I'd try the following approach : 
> > * run 1 slon slave wherever you want and ask them to save SQL commands 
> > in text files
> > * move these text files ( using whatever means ) to slaves and apply
> > there using shell scripts.
> 
> This sounds like a *great* way to do statement-based replication that
> would actually work.  Have you tested to see what what resources it
> saves, if any?  Do you have general scripts for doing such things?
> Also, how do you distinguish what should be replayed vs. what should
> not?

Well, you should probably replay all sql statements generated by slon.

Andreas