John Moran <johnfrederickmoran at gmail.com> writes:
>> So, if parts of the system are out for a few hours, it may take a number
>> of SYNCs to get up to date; things play more nicely if those SYNCs are
>> small, as opposed to being giant mudballs of changes that take a long
>> time to apply.
>
> Care to comment on how sensible you think this is in general?

I hate the idea, but my opinion doesn't necessarily count on this :-).

I suppose what I'd prefer, generally speaking, would be for the
application to be somewhat aware of the possibility of outage, and to
use a mechanism that is a bit more "visible."

What feels more apropos would be for the application to visibly queue
changes ala pgq (which happens to be the basis for the Londiste
replication system).

But it's not as if I feel *really* strongly about this.

What you're trying to do surely *ought* to work OK with Slony-I.
-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ca.afilias.info';
Christopher Browne
"Bother,"  said Pooh,  "Eeyore, ready  two photon  torpedoes  and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"