On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 12:51 -0700, Wayne Conrad wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:29:41PM -0700, Wayne Conrad wrote:
> > > has a "where log_actionseq not in (...)" clause with about 320,000
> > > numbers in it, which is what is making postgres cranky.
> > 
> > Sort of.  If I'm not mistaken, that setting is in the postgresql.conf
> > file, and it's measured in KB.  You can increase it.  I believe it
> > requires a restart of the postmaster to take effect, but check
> > the docs.
> 
> Thanks for mentioning that, since I forgot to.  That's
> max_stack_depth, which defaults to 2048KB.  I increased it to 4098KB,
> then 8192KB, and so on.  When I got to 1048576K with no success, I
> decided that dog wasn't gonna hunt.  Does it make any sense to try
> more than 1GB of stack?

I run with 64MB of stack specifically for Slony.

It seems that with each set you want to replicate you get a duplication
of the restriction clauses for transaction boundaries, including the
large IN clause.

If you run with a large number of sets and fall significantly behind due
to a long running transaction, the stack size required can grow quite
quickly.

Try dropping, merging or unsubscribing from a few sets then rejoin to
them after it catches up again.

--