<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Steve Singer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@ssinger.info" target="_blank">steve@ssinger.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Tory M Blue wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Bump sync_group_maxsize to be much bigger, I'm not saying that will solve the problem but it might help(max<br>
allowed is 10,000). I'm also suspect when you say your have a sync_interval of 5 minutes, since I thought 60<br>
seconds was the largest allowed.<br>
<br>
My apologies<br>
<br>
cleanup_interval="5 minutes" <br>
<br>
my interval is 1000ms<br>
<br>
And sync, group cites 100 is the max<br>
<br>
# Range: [0,100], default: 6<br>
<br>
sync_group_maxsize=50<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Where does that come from?<br>
<a href="http://www.slony.info/documentation/2.2/slon-config-interval.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.slony.info/documentation/2.2/slon-config-interval.html</a><br>
<br>
says the max is 10,000 and the code looks like it agrees. Try it and see if you start to catch up. Also an analyze on your sl_log_1 and sl_log_2 can't hurt.<br>
<br>
With a sync_group_size of 20 slon will select the data for at most 20 SYNC's at once and apply them (using a select from sl_log_1 ... union select from sl_log_2 ...)<br>
<br>
With a sync_group_size of 10,000 it can in theory select 10,000 sync's at once (but I think it takes a while to work up to that point).<br>
<br>
If your bottleneck is the master then it is possible that the selecting from sl_log is causing the problem.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Thanks Steve, I had that in my slon.conf, it may have been left over from many years 10+ of using slon and a much earlier version :) I'll keep incrementing it and see what happens.</div><div><br></div><div>Analyze was quick, but I think you are on to something when you cited that it may be taking a bit to grab from sl_log1 and thus the snowball.. Can't say I've ever had this many records backed up, but the idea of dropping node 2, when i know I'll be in the same situation bothers me :)</div>
<p class=""><span class="">2016-01-07 15:10:29 PST clsdb postgres [local] 16066 2016-01-07 15:10:29.128 PSTLOG: duration: 2096.165 ms statement: analyze _cls.sl_log_2</span>;</p>
<div>2016-01-07 15:10:36 PST aclsdb postgres [local] 16066 2016-01-07 15:10:36.162 PSTLOG: duration: 2426.762 ms statement: analyze _cls.sl_log_1 </div><div><br></div><div>Tory</div></div></div></div>