> But since all tables got locked, even for readers, while the subscription > took place, a reinitialization of the slony cluster was pretty disruptive"
Still though, Slony at some point must have a lock on all structures and it cannot give up locks as it goes. As far as I know the order that Slony runs through the structures is not predictable -- escalating locks is always a bad idea. Anybody relying on access to these tables while Slony is building them will have pretty big problems at some point. Is there a better way to allow Slony to do its thing without blocking? Perhaps by creating new structures, loading up the dataset, dropping the original and renaming the new one? -- _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
