On 5/12/2010 10:31 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
>     I have two Slony test beds which show the exact same symptoms!
> 
> select * from sl_event order by ev_seqno;
> 
>  ev_origin |  ev_seqno  |        ev_timestamp        |        
> ev_snapshot         | ev_type |
> -----------+------------+----------------------------+----------------------------+---------+-
>          2 | 5000000002 | 2010-04-30 08:32:38.622928 | 
> 458:458:                   | SYNC    |
>          1 | 5000525721 | 2010-05-12 13:30:22.79626  | 
> 72685915:72685915:         | SYNC    |
>          1 | 5000525722 | 2010-05-12 13:30:24.800943 | 
> 72686139:72686139:         | SYNC    |
>          1 | 5000525723 | 2010-05-12 13:30:26.804862 | 
> 72686224:72686224:         | SYNC    |
> ...
> 

Slony always keeps at least the last event per origin around. Otherwise 
the view sl_status would not work.

What should worry you is that there are no newer SYNC events from node 2 
available. Slony does create a sporadic SYNC every now and then even if 
there is no activity or the node isn't an origin anyway.

Is it possible that node 2's clock is way off?


Jan

> The reason I think this _might_ be a bug is that on both clusters, slave 
> node's sl_event has the exact same record for ev_seqno=5000000002 except 
> for the timestamp; same origin, and same snapshot!
> 
> The head of sl_confirm has:
> 
>  select * from sl_confirm order by con_seqno;
> 
>  con_origin | con_received | con_seqno  |       con_timestamp
> ------------+--------------+------------+----------------------------
>           2 |            1 | 5000000002 | 2010-04-30 08:32:53.974021
>           1 |            2 | 5000527075 | 2010-05-12 14:15:41.192279
>           1 |            2 | 5000527076 | 2010-05-12 14:15:43.193607
>           1 |            2 | 5000527077 | 2010-05-12 14:15:45.196291
>           1 |            2 | 5000527078 | 2010-05-12 14:15:47.197005
> ...
> 
> Can someone comment on the health of the cluster? All events, except for 
> that on, are being confirmed and purged from the system regularly, so my 
> assumption is that the cluster is healthy and that the slave is in sync 
> with the master.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> -- 
> gurjeet.singh
> @ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
> http://www.enterprisedb.com
> 
> singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
> Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
> 
> Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general


-- 
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin