Christopher Browne wrote:
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 :-(.
Well, I'll be honest with you, I would be glad to test replication on
another of our databases and do what ever is necessary to retain that
data so we could look into this issue. Is there a way to do this?
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
