Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 08:55:39AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
>>>> relation with OID 394006 does not exist
>> I only wish that was the problem.  Our application does not remove any 
>> tables.
> 
> Something removed a table.  That's what that error message means.  I can
> think of a couple possibilities:
> 
> 1.  Somewhere, your application or some person got in and removed (or maybe
> renamed and re-created) a table that was referenced by _something_ that was
> still open.

The only tables that could possibly be removed would be temp tables.  I 
assure you, none of the tables that are being replicated are being 
removed by anyone.  The application is not designed that way.

> 2.  Slony was dropped from the node without some set of your connections
> having disconnected, and they're still expecting the triggers they can still
> see to be able to write into that table.

Can you define 'dropped from the node?'

> I am by no means willing to dismiss the suggestion that there are bugs in
> Slony; but this still looks to me very much like there's something we don't
> know about what happened, that explains the errors you're seeing.

I would so love to figure out this issue.  I appreciate your efforts.

I simply don't understand how one table inparticular could get so far 
out of sync.  We're talking 300 records.

I can't imagine that slony is that fragile.  There's got to be something 
going on that we don't see.

I started the replication of this database last night.  Neither machine 
has been rebooted and neither postmaster was restarted.

Is it possible I should be tweaking the configuration in some way?  I 
see a default value for SYNC_CHECK_INTERNAL.  Is 1000 a good value?

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin