On 8/21/2012 6:16 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The one thing that I'd be a *bit* concerned about is the 57K event
> lag.  At one point, I recall there being a possible troublesome case
> where one of the queries for the first SYNC processing after that
> could time out when trying to read in all of the tens of thousands of
> events.  It would be nicer if, during this laggy period, SYNCs got
> generated somewhat less often, let's say, every 10-20s rather than
> every 0.5s.

That can only happen on slon startup, when the remote_listen thread 
selects all NEW events. During the copy_set(), the remote listener is 
still getting these events and queues them in memory.

Unless something is interrupting the copy, I'm not worried yet.


Jan

-- 
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither
liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin