Dnia 2013-07-26, pią o godzinie 14:24 -0400, Steve Singer pisze:
> On 07/26/2013 04:13 AM, Robert Wysocki wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-07-26, pią o godzinie 09:02 +0200, Robert Wysocki pisze:
> >
> > And now I confirmed that test case #2 works fine (replication OK without
> > the need to include sequence in replication set) with slony 2.0.4
> >
> 
> Really?
> I just tried this with slony 2.0.7 and it does not work (I doubt this 
> has changed between 2.0.4 and 2.0.7)
> 
> 
> 2013-07-26 14:19:03 EDTCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: DDL request with 2 
> statements
> 2013-07-26 14:19:03 EDTCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: DDL Statement 0: 
> [insert into testseq ( data ) values ( 'execute script test' );]
> 2013-07-26 14:19:03 EDTERROR  DDL Statement failed - PGRES_FATAL_ERROR
> 2013-07-26 14:19:03 EDTCONFIG slon: child terminated signal: 9; pid: 
> 13988, current worker pid: 13988
> 
> 
> 
> However, each time slon attempts to run the execute script the default 
> nextval() on the replica it will advance the current value of the 
> sequence on the replica (because sequence operations don't get rolled 
> back) so after a couple of attempts the excute script will work on the 
> replica.
> 
> I suspect this is what your seeing in your test.  Repeat your test case 
> #1 on 2.0.4 but instead of inserting 1 row, insert 100 rows with psql 
> and let them replicate.  I think you will then find that it takes a lot 
> longer for the execute script on the replica to 'appear to work'

Thanks Steve, you were right, that was it.

Regards,
-- 
Robert Wysocki
administrator systemów linuksowych
administrator baz danych
Grupa Unity | ul. Przedmiejska 6-10, 54-201 Wrocław
ul. Conrada 55B, 31-357 Kraków | ul. Złota 59, 00-120 Warszawa