On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 16:26 -0800, Michael Crozier wrote:
> > Not so much peculiar as the first to realize such a need existed.
> >
> > One small step for a man, one giant leap for slon-kind?
> 
> Not so sure... I still find need to compile slon to keep the sync size at a 
> constant 100 during the initial sync, otherwise it keeps dropping back to 
> zero and falling behind.

Have you tried this with newer versions? I recall discussions taking
place about automatically extending the grouping until it reaches a
second transaction.

The main reason for increasing group size during the initial sync was to
get out of that first large copy transaction caused by Slony itself.


It is normally the size, by time not necessarily real work, of the
transaction being replicated that causes the problems -- although there
are cases where having several sets can also make things difficult.
--