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.

-- 
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/