Brad Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 17:21 -0500, Robert Landrum wrote: 
>   
>> I'm working with a very large database.  300 tables and about 350 
>> sequences.  Dumped, it's about 8GB of data.
>>
>> I've read several posts that seem to indicate that I need to let slony 
>> sync my data between the master and the slave when I subscribe the slave 
>> to the master.  I would prefer to avoid this, as it'll take quite a 
>> while for the sync to take place.  After about 2 hours and 30 minutes, 
>> I'm only about 5% complete.
>>
>> Is this just a limitation of slony? Or is there a workaround I've missed?
>>     
>
>
> If not, it could be a limitation of your hardware and/or Postgres
> configuration, or your usage.

I'd suggest checking the performance of your replication path using
COPYing some average table; this is what Slony mainly does when
subscribing. If you locate your bottleneck and improve the performance,
Slony will fly too.

Regards,
Andreas