Christopher:

> The error message is more an indication that Slony-I *prevented*
> something bad from happening...

OK, good to know. Is there anything I can to to 'encourage' slony to
catch up quicker? Its really moving llike molasses.
st_last_received_event_ts has advanced only 12 minutes in the past
hour and a half. Restarting slony didn't help.

Disconnecting the subscriber application server from the application?
Running some sort of slonik script? Rebooting? Kicking slony in the
pants?

As always, thanks for the brain cycles!

- Don Barthel


On 5/16/07, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
> Don Barthel wrote:
> > Jeff:
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > I have some big/complicated indexes on one particular table and since
> > I have lots of memory to spare I've just now increased my
> > shared_buffers from 20000 to 40000 (and SHMMAX at the OS level
> > appropriately) and reload'ed postgresql but things are still
> > progressing slowly.
> >
> > I notice in my /var/log/messages on the origin (and not on the
> > subscriber) this:
> >
> > May 16 14:55:26 coliseum postgres[21817]: [1-1] ERROR:  duplicate key
> > violates unique constraint "sl_nodelock-pkey"
> >
> > sl=slon, right?
> >
> > Doing this: select * from "_usedstuff".sl_nodelock; I get:
> >
> > nl_nodeid | nl_conncnt | nl_backendpid
> > -----------+------------+---------------
> >         1 |          0 |         18083
> >         2 |         10 |         18089
> >         2 |         11 |         18090
> >
> > Only three records. And I notice that the index on this table is:
> > "sl_nodelock-pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (nl_nodeid, nl_conncnt)
> >
> > This looks like a problem to me but I cannot fathom where to start to
> > fix it. Any clues? Thanks in advance!
> This would normally result from trying to start up a second slon process
> when one is already running.
>
> The constraint on sl_nodelock prevents two slon processes from trying to
> work on things at the same time, and consequently mussing things up.
>
> The error message is more an indication that Slony-I *prevented*
> something bad from happening...
>