On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:51:44PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 07/25/2015 12:31 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >While in the best of all possible worlds, we'd have planned out a
> >replication strategy before we get tables whose initial sync via
> >"SUBSCRIBE SET" will never finish, we aren't always given that much
> >ability to plan that soon.
> 
> One thing I forgot to ask initially. What do you mean by "will never
> finish"? Is that just being facetious about "it will take a long
> time", is it that you don't have the disk storage to swallow the
> back log that will accumulate or is it "outdated knowledge" from the
> times when Slony did actually slow down with accumulation of
> backlog?

As far as I could tell, backlog was accumulating faster than the
initial sync was happening.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david at fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter at gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate