Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Rees wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I simply don't understand how one table inparticular could get so far >>> out of sync. We're talking 300 records. >> Have you checked that replication is up to date (look at the >> sl_status >> view on the master)? > > I'm assuming I should be looking at st_last_event and > st_last_received? They are within one on both machines. (9303, 9302 > and 7278, 7277). > > This would indicate they are keeping up pretty well. Still, one table > is out of sync by over 300 records.
That's all useful to know. That tells us that the 300 records aren't simply a timing difference due to the slon being behind. It would be *VERY* interesting to track down what happened to those 300 records. If their data were still in sl_log_[1/2], then we could trace through the logs and get a more exact picture of what did/didn't happen. I suspect that the sl_log_* data is long gone, by now :-(. >> What do the slon logs say? Post them up using pastbin or something for >> review. > > They are huge, so I'm not sure what I should be looking for. I don't > see any warnings or errors, only CONFIG, DEBUG1, DEBUG2 references. That doesn't suggest any conumdrums, not up front, anyways. -- "cbbrowne","@","linuxfinances.info" http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html "It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than it is to solve it." -- RFC 1925 _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
