On 08/24/2015 05:17 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 24 August 2015 at 17:13, Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info
> <mailto:ssinger at ca.afilias.info>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/24/2015 05:06 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>              and a slonik script like
>              ---------------
>              cluster name=mycluster;
>              node 1 admin conninfo='...'
>              node 4 admin conninfo='...'
>
>              resubscribe node(origin=1,provider=1,receiver=4);
>              ----------
>
>              is waiting?
>
>              If so it should tell you from which node it is waiting for
>         events from.
>
>
>         Close enough. I went from 2 to 4 and this is the output
>
>         waiting for events  (4,5002587214 <tel:5002587214>) only at
>         (4,5002579907 <tel:5002579907>) to be
>         confirmed on node 2
>
>


Now I assume the  "only at (2,5003478340) number is staying the same and 
it isn't going up. IF it is then you actually have progress being made 
but I find that unlikely if node 2 isn't the origin of any sets to node 
1(you would be caught up quickly).


Another option would be

   cluster name=mycluster;
   node 1 admin conninfo='...'
   node 2 admin conninfo='..
   node 3 admin conninfo='..
   node 4 admin conninfo='..
   failover(id=3, backup node = 2);


Per the failover documentation

Nodes that are forwarding providers can also be passed to the failover 
command as a failed node. The failover process will redirect the 
subscriptions from these nodes to the backup node.



>     are there paths between node 2 and 4?
>
> There are but I thought I would try your suggestion which evokes a
> different error message
>
> waiting for events  (2,5003485579) only at (2,5003478340),
> (4,5002587214) only at (4,5002579907) to be confirmed on node 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                           Dave Cramer
>
>                           On 24 August 2015 at 15:38, Scott Marlowe
>                           <scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>
>                  <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>>
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>
>                  <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>>>
>                           <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>
>                  <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>>
>                           <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>
>                  <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com
>         <mailto:scott.marlowe at gmail.com>>>>> wrote:
>
>                                Note that the node will still show up in
>         sl_nodes and
>                           sl_status for a
>                                while, until slony does a cleanup event / log
>                  switch (can't
>                           remember
>                                which right now). This is normal. Don't
>         freak out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>