On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Christopher Browne > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> writes: >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jan Wieck <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 4/21/2010 2:38 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So, I had a query that blocked all updates going out of the sl_log_2 >>>>> table, and it's 13Gig. sl_log_1 is empty. >>>>> >>>>> IS the logswitch_finish() command an acceptable method for forcing the >>>>> replication engine to switch from 2 to 1 so I can vacuum full 2? >>>> >>>> It is completely safe to call logswitch_finish() at any time. It may or may >>>> not actually do something. >>>> >>>> In your case, I presume the value of sl_log_status is 2. This means it is >>>> waiting for sl_log_2 to become empty and once that happens, it will >>>> truncate >>>> it and set sl_log_status to 0. >>> >>> So, if I let the system just sit quiescent for a while, it should >>> straighten things out? >> >> The other thing that could be useful to run would be the stored function >> cleanupevent(). >> >> That clears out old events that have been confirmed by all nodes in the >> cluster, which is the pre-requisite for logswitch_finish() doing >> anything useful. >> >> It would probably be a useful idea for cleanupevent() to log a little >> bit of information about how much work it does (e.g. - how many tuples >> it trims out of sl_confirm, sl_event, sl_seqlog).
So, after the load fell off this evening, slony caught up and both log tables showed as being small, in the < 100 MB range all the time. _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
