> That's an interesting point. Out of curiosity, how did the > corruption originate?
We're still not sure. It appears to be in the system catalogs, though. Note that the original master developed memory issues. > It suggests a couple questions: > > (1) Was Slony running before the corruption occurred? No. > If not, how > was Slony helpful? Install, replicate DB logically, new DB works fine. > (2) If logical transactions had been implemented as additions to > the WAL stream, and Slony was using that, do you think they would > still have been usable for this recovery? Quite possibly not. > Perhaps sending both physical and logical transaction streams over > the WAN isn't such a bad thing, if it gives us more independent > recovery mechanisms. That's fewer copies than we're sending with > current trigger-based techniques. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the Slony model for replication except for the overhead of: 1. triggers 2. queues 3. Running DDL However, the three above are really big issues. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
