Jim Archer wrote:

> -I have been doing testing and have had a cluster running for several
> days now, but not with any really big transactions.  My use does
> occasionally have very big transactions, bigger than the 8,000 records
> I think you said you tried.  I guess I'll be doing some more testing
> before installing this on my production machines.
> Thanks very much for the heads up!

No problem; it's not the number of records, its the total size of the
records (eg. we can have a single update that has more than 20MB of
data). I think we've been blowing the process address space limit of
500MB because of the unctrolled reads the slon process does.