Geoffrey <lists at serioustechnology.com> writes:
> David Rees wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Geoffrey <lists at serioustechnology.com> wrote:
>>>  I simply don't understand how one table inparticular could get so far
>>>  out of sync.  We're talking 300 records.
>> Have you checked that replication is up to date (look at the
>> sl_status
>> view on the master)?
>
> I'm assuming I should be looking at st_last_event and
> st_last_received? They are within one on both machines. (9303, 9302
> and 7278, 7277).
>
> This would indicate they are keeping up pretty well.  Still, one table
> is out of sync by over 300 records.

That's all useful to know.  That tells us that the 300 records aren't
simply a timing difference due to the slon being behind.

It would be *VERY* interesting to track down what happened to those
300 records.  If their data were still in sl_log_[1/2], then we could
trace through the logs and get a more exact picture of what did/didn't
happen.  

I suspect that the sl_log_* data is long gone, by now :-(.

>> What do the slon logs say? Post them up using pastbin or something for review.
>
> They are huge, so I'm not sure what I should be looking for.  I don't
> see any warnings or errors, only CONFIG, DEBUG1, DEBUG2 references.

That doesn't suggest any conumdrums, not up front, anyways.
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","linuxfinances.info"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
"It  is easier to move a  problem around  (for  example, by moving the
problem to a different part  of the overall network architecture) than
it is to solve it."  -- RFC 1925