Robert Landrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jacques Caron wrote: >>> this just a limitation of slony? Or is there a workaround I've missed? >> What other option would you imagine there could be? >> > > Reject Master db connections. Dump Master. Load Master data onto > Slave. Start Master/Slave replication. Re-allow Master DB > connections. > > I would imaging that there'd need to be some sort of seeding operation > in between the data load and the starting of the master and slave > replication, where one populates the slony tables with the sync status > of each of the tables/sequences in the set. > > Obviously that's not something that is supported, but that was kinda > what I had in mind when I started.
That is decidedly NOT how things work... In order for Slony-I to be certain that data has been faithfully copied over, the "seeding operation" is that the subscription process copies all of the data over. As a result, if you loaded *any* data into the subscriber, that data will be thrown away. There is therefore no point in loading anything onto the subscriber aside from the schema. Pre-loading data is a waste of time. -- (format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "cbbrowne" "linuxdatabases.info") http://linuxdatabases.info/info/wp.html "What we need is either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." -- Unknown _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
