On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 03:39:35PM -0600, Dan Falconer wrote:
>
> I'm confused. It kinda sounds like you're saying "Slony isn't going to
> work
> very well for me". Previous to my upgrade to 1.2.6 (back in the 1.1.0 days),
> Slony worked great for replicating,
Hmm. Well, if it _used_ to work for you, that's a different story.
I think I must have misunderstood what you were saying, because I was
under the impression you had this problem all along.
Here's what the issue is, I think: once you get behind, catching up
looks like it never happens, because a huge chunk of work all happens
all in one giant transaction. But it's also true that once you get
very far behind, it's nearly impossible to catch up, because your
inbound traffic is simply overwhelming Slony's ability to process
both what's pending and what is coming in.
As I said, my suggestion is to stop Slony, do some maintenance on the
log tables and replicated tables (my bet is that Slony's replication
process is getting the data via bad plans, because you've changed so
much data), and then re-start. Without seeing the slony logs and the
like, it's pretty hard to guess, but that'd be my first blind one.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard
to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath."
--Damien Katz
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
