On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Raghav wrote:
Aha,,, for a moment I thought I was on wrong page, but am very much on right
page. I can see my
posting on Slony Mailing list
Archives. http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/2012-June/author.html
Can you guys share your thoughts on my query. To fast the slave sync catch up,
I disabled
Autovacuum and increase memory parameters at database level, coming to slony
level, I played a bit
with sync_interval & sync_interval_timeout, but it didnt helped me much.
Someone asked a similar question a few days ago, my comments
http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/2012-June/012217.html
mostly apply to you as well.
The Slony initial COPY SET needs to copy the entire contents of the table.
This will be no faster than the time it would take to perform a pg_dump.
Normal rules for speed up bulk loads with postgresql apply. Are you IO
bound, CPU bound or network bound?
The sync_interval and sync_interval_timeout only come into play AFTER the
initial copy_set is done (I think).
Steve
--Raghav
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
