On Monday November 8 2004 10:37, Ed L. wrote:
> On Monday November 8 2004 8:59, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 11/8/2004 9:58 PM, Ed L. wrote:
> > > I just had a 1.0.5 initial "copy set" fail after 2 hours of data
> > > copying. This was not slony's fault; the slon process got clobbered.
> > > Unfortunately, it rolled back all 2 hours of progress.  I don't have
> > > a patch to offer for this, but it would be nice to be able to commit
> > > partially thru the copy set and pick up where it left off ...
> >
> > Right, it would be nice. But I failed to figure out how to do this
> > without relying on the masters MVCC features while at the same time
> > ensuring that restarting against a possibly all the time heavily
> > updated master would still lead to a consistent initial copy. I don't
> > expect a patch ... I would settle for an idea.
>
> I wonder if you could somehow take note of a progress checkpoint after
> some amount of time on the nearest "truncateTable(...); copy table"
> boundary after the amount of time elapses?  Maybe
> sl_table.tab_initialized = false until each table is committed on the
> slave, then sl_table.tab_initialized
>
> := 'true'?  Then, if lights go out, you pick up with slave listing of
>
> tables where sl_table.tab_initialized = false before moving on to events.
> Not sure that qualifies as a usable idea.

Duh.  Now I see your point about changing master.   Hmm.

Ed