> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 05:34:34PM -0600, Dan Falconer wrote: >> I'm going to leave this overnight, and find out what happens, but I'm >> not >> very hopeful. Tomorrow, if it hasn't caught up significantly, I'm going >> to >> have to do something drastic... and if 1.2.6 continues to drop behind so >> badly, I may have to (attempt to) revert backup to 1.1.0. I may try >> just > > Naw: if that's what's happening, something is wrong in a way we need > to fix right away, and will do in collaboration with you. We'll need > more data, though, about what's going on under the hood.
Further, I don't think there's anything about 1.1 that would be expected to be *better* than 1.2, in terms of performance. The one thing that would be expected to affect performance is the switching between log tables (sl_log_1 and sl_log_2). And the fact that this has the ability to *empty* the tables should be an improvement. I can suggest one thing to take a particular look at, namely what indices are on sl_log_1 and sl_log_2. There should, over time, become a set of partial indexes on these tables based on the node numbers that are the origins of replication sets. That should be a help (e.g. - better performance than in 1.1, which didn't do this). If there aren't good indices on these tables, which would be unexpected, that could cause problems _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
