On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:37 -0800, Craig James wrote:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > I came to work today and seems like the slave server died. (power trip?
> > No it was not connected to a UPS :-()
> > 
> > I've not been able to locate/determine if the slave is really dead or
> > otherwise and it's the weekend in Asia and there's no one in the office
> > till Next week.
> > 
> > As of now, the master is still trying to contact the slave (slon is
> > still running on the master) and log_1 and log_2 is filling up.
> > 
> > And yesterday, I just created a job to manually force the log_switch to
> > occur. So, right now, I'm at a loss as to what i can do.
> 
> Just kill all of the Slony daemons.  Next week when the other server is back, start them again.  It will figure out what it missed, and will catch up with no problems.

Huh? YOu sure about that? I think I read somewhere on the slony docs
that I should at least keep the master slon process online so that I
don't generate 1 big sync or something along those lines.

Doesn't the slony daemon work on triggers or it only implements the
triggers and creates the syncs. The logs will fill up no matter what
correct?

So, if what you're saying is correct, by killing the Master's slon
process, I am just stopping any syncs from being generated, so that I
don't fall behind in terms of the syncs (no syncs catchup later on) but
since the changes are still being logged, I'm still OK?

Is this understanding correct?