On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:48:16PM +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> question is - what is the worst case scenario? what should happen for me to
> get punished for this?

- Inserts to the master break
- Replication attempts break (on a set containing the data that's
causing the problem) -- which blocks all subsequent replication too,
note.

> as for now - even with bad (kvvvv instead of kvvvvv) triggers i still get
> good results (kudos to dev team).

No, you're _not_ getting good results.  You're getting lucky.  The
problem crops up in a way that makes it hard to predict when it will
happen (it's not indeterminate, it's just got a lot of variables).

> is it safe but not sugested, or there is some scenario which could lead to
> something bad? if yes, then what scenario and what bad?

No, it is not safe.  This is the basis of the discussion recently. 
See the recap above.

If you need to do DDL on a resplicated table, you REALLY REALLY do
need to allow the blocking.  Sorry.  (And are you really telling me,
anyway, that you can't block for even 5 minutes one time in a
planned way?  Slony does not provide "five 9s", you know.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. 
		--Dennis Ritchie