Christopher Browne wrote:
> 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 :-(.

Well, I'll be honest with you, I would be glad to test replication on 
another of our databases and do what ever is necessary to retain that 
data so we could look into this issue.  Is there a way to do this?

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

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