On Jul 29, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Jason Culverhouse wrote:
>
>
> You may wish to investigate whether or not a node is down, or perhaps
> if sl_confirm entries have not been propagating properly.
>
>>
>> I'd *suspect* that a confirmation isn't getting back to node 20, so  
>> it
>> doesn't know that those tuples can be deleted, and hence never gets
>> around to truncating the log table.

>> If communications are fine, then the question arises, why aren't  
>> those
>> old tuples in sl_log_2 getting trimmed?  That should help direct the
>> questions, irrespective of cause.

from http://www.slony.info/documentation/stmtmergeset.html
Is it possible that a merge set caused this?

I know I did a merge set and got a "subscription in progress" warning
I haven't reattempted the merge set since, so right now I have 2 sets,
could this be related to my problem?

>>
>> FYI, if there's some misconfiguration that has caused this, and the
>> truncate then comes thru (~10-15 minutes later), then you may want to
>> induce another log switch pretty soon since sl_log_1 probably has a
>> lot of data crudding it up.  Again, someone asked how to induce this
>> just recently, so take a peek at recent archives for how to do that.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general