I responded to I think most of your points in the other email, but there is one thing:
On 3 January 2012 17:33, Christopher Browne <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout > <[email protected]> wrote: >> In any case, the way we fixed it before was to unsubscribe and >> resubscribe the set, because resyncing the whole database is quicker >> than waiting for the deletes to complete. However, this time it broke >> in a new way. The result is that slony thinks it is properly >> subscribed, but the database data has not been resynced, so you get >> some bastard combination of old and new data. Logs below. > > Unfortunately, the UNSUBSCRIBE request comes in as an event, and it's > later in the event stream than the SYNC-of-the-million-deletes, so > it's probably not processing when you think it ought to. In our experience whenever the replication is behind, doing an unsubscribe is acted upon immediately. I always thought this was by design, though I couldn't work out why. But you're saying it shouldn't work at all... That's just weird. I'll have to pay more attention next time to see exactly what happened. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[email protected]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
