OH, maybe i was cheking an old documentation source, so theres no problem
putting all my tables in one set,
unless they were more than 10000 :D, here we have like 300 tables so theres no
problem.
thank you very much
----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:08:20 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] FW: How To Define Replications Sets Properly
>
> Fharid Salomon Fernandez wrote:
> > Thanks For your answers, well i was thinking that to,
> > but the thing is that when you put all the tables in one replication set
> > when the set needs to lock itself, my whole database is going to be locked ?
> >
>
>
> You didn't mention which version of slony your using.
>
> Also in which circumstances are you concerned about locking the tables?
>
> Be aware that with Slony 1.2 ALL replicated tables get locked with every
> EXECUTE SCRIPT call even if they are in different sets. With Slony
> version 2.0.x EXECUTE SCRIPT doesn't lock any tables (note bug
> http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=137 it is possible the
> solution to that might introduce a bit more locking)
>
> Another instance where slony locks things is move set, if your foreign
> key relationships are as you describe this is exactly why you want them
> in one set. You don't want a situation where some tables are moved at a
> different time than other related tables.
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Slony1-general mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>
>
> --
> Steve Singer
> Afilias Canada
> Data Services Developer
> 416-673-1142
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
