On 12/12/06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:48:16PM +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> > question is - what is the worst case scenario? what should happen for me
> to
> > get punished for this?
> - Inserts to the master break


nope. it does when i do master first and then slave.

- Replication attempts break (on a set containing the data that's
> causing the problem) -- which blocks all subsequent replication too,
> note.


why? never happened to me.


> > as for now - even with bad (kvvvv instead of kvvvvv) triggers i still
> get
> > good results (kudos to dev team).
> No, you're _not_ getting good results.  You're getting lucky.  The
> problem crops up in a way that makes it hard to predict when it will
> happen (it's not indeterminate, it's just got a lot of variables).


being consistenly lucky on 40+g database with over 600 transactions per
second - possible, but i doubt i have such luck. and i have did it over 50
times already.


> If you need to do DDL on a resplicated table, you REALLY REALLY do
> need to allow the blocking.  Sorry.  (And are you really telling me,
> anyway, that you can't block for even 5 minutes one time in a
> planned way?  Slony does not provide "five 9s", you know.)
>

i know it doesn't. this is not a problem for me. i was just asking for worst
case scenario and technical reasons for them.

depesz

-- 
http://www.depesz.com/ - nowy, lepszy depesz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gborg.postgresql.org/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20061213/3b72bedc/attachment.html