On Jan 30, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Jeff Frost wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Casey Duncan wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope the slave did not get the DDL (or at least it was not  
>> successfully committed).
>>
>> On my dev server, I was able to reproduce the same failure even  
>> with the slon daemons still running, so I think that pops a hole  
>> in theory that not having slon running is the culprit (which is  
>> fine w/me btw since that's a non-starter for us). Interestingly  
>> data changes made in the upgrade script *did* propagate to the  
>> secondary.
>>
>
> Did slonik report any errors when you submitted the DDL changes?   
> If so, what were they?  Can you find the errors regarding the DDL  
> change in your slon and/or postgres logs?

It turned out to be a logic error in my upgrade script. Mistakes were  
made, the persons responsible have been disciplined.

Thanks for the help, sorry for the distraction.

-Casey