Cyril SCETBON wrote:
> Which type of ALTER did you make ?
> 
> Don't forget that there's a special trigger on the source table that 
> must be updated too.

I'm not sure of how the change was made, I didn't make it.  As far as I 
know, all he did was add a new field to one of the tables.  He did not 
modify any slony triggers by hand.

> 
> Geoffrey wrote:
>> David Rees wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Geoffrey 
>>> <lists at serioustechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> Will it cause a problem if one adds fields to a table that is being
>>>> replicated?
>>>>
>>>> That is, will it break the replication process, or will the replication
>>>> continue to simply replicate the previous set of fields?
>>>
>>> It should continue to replicate the previous set of fields, but is not
>>> recommended to do so.
>>
>> I don't know if it's related or not, but it appears that our slave is 
>> now out of sync with the master.  It's a two node set up, and it's 
>> been replicating for some time now.  It's just now that I've gone in 
>> and compared record counts on some major tables and they are not in 
>> sync. Further, I can see updates happen to the master node tables but 
>> don't see them on the slave.
>>
>> If adding the field didn't cause the problem, any ideas what might have?
>>
> 


-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

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