Tue Jan 3 09:31:24 PST 2012
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I in strange state after attempted unsubscribe/resubscribe
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I in strange state after attempted unsubscribe/resubscribe
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hoi, > What version of Slony are you using? > What version of Postgresql are you using? Sorry, I should have mentioned: slony-I 2.0.7, PostgreSQL 9.0.3 > I suspect you hit bug #167 (fixed in 2.1.0) that makes sync operations slow > when sl_log_x gets big. Well, the symptoms look about right. Might see if I can push to get an upgrade to at least that version. > unsubscribe(id=1, receiver=2); > wait for event(origin=2, confirmed=all, wait on=2); > subscribe set(set id=1, provider=1,receiver=2,forward=yes); > > In 2.1 and above slonik should automatically perform the 'wait for event'. Ok, that's good to know. Currently we're doing: slonik_unsubscribe_set -c /etc/slony_tools.conf 1 2 |slonik which is quite possibly not the recommended way. But the output is just an unsubscribe with a try .. on error .. block around it. >> --- unsubscribe happens here --- >> 2012-01-01 14:37:58 CETCONFIG unsubscribeSet: sub_set=1 >> 2012-01-01 14:37:58 CETCONFIG storeListen: li_origin=1 li_receiver=2 >> li_provider=1 >> --- this is the weird error --- >> 2012-01-01 14:44:09 CETERROR remoteWorkerThread_1: "update >> "_pp_config_rep".sl_setsync set ssy_seqno = '5000990613', >> ssy_snapshot = '20587190:20590885:20587190', ssy_action_list = '' >> where ssy_setid in (1) and ssy_seqno< '5000990613'; " ERROR: could >> not serialize access due to concurrent update >> 2012-01-01 14:44:09 CETERROR remoteWorkerThread_1: SYNC aborted > > If the receivers remoteWorkerThread_1 is aborted because of the unsubscribe > then I don't see this as an issue. Given the timing I wonder if it's the subscribe that's actually failing... >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: update provider >> configuration >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: helper thread for >> provider 1 terminated >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: disconnecting from >> data provider 1 >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG storeSubscribe: sub_set=1 sub_provider=1 >> sub_forward='t' >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG storeListen: li_origin=1 li_receiver=2 >> li_provider=1 >> 2012-01-01 14:44:21 CETCONFIG remoteWorkerThread_1: update provider >> configuration >> --- and here it appears slony thinks it is properly subscribed, but >> the database has not been resynced --- > > What do you base this statement on? I do not see anything in the logs you > pasted showing me that slon2 has received the SUBSCRIBE_SET or > ENABLE_SUBSCRIPTION event. Well, I'm basing it on that the logs repeated this for two days: 2012-01-02 12:31:47 CETINFO cleanupThread: 0.004 seconds for cleanupEvent() NOTICE: Slony-I: log switch to sl_log_2 complete - truncate sl_log_1 CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "cleanupevent" line 99 at assignment 2012-01-02 12:43:15 CETINFO cleanupThread: 0.079 seconds for cleanupEvent() 2012-01-02 12:43:15 CETINFO cleanupThread: 0.006 seconds for vacuuming NOTICE: Slony-I: Logswitch to sl_log_1 initiated CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT "_pp_config_rep".logswitch_start()" PL/pgSQL function "cleanupevent" line 101 at PERFORM 2012-01-02 12:54:30 CETINFO cleanupThread: 0.004 seconds for cleanupEvent() NOTICE: Slony-I: log switch to sl_log_1 complete - truncate sl_log_2 CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "cleanupevent" line 99 at assignment 2012-01-02 13:05:14 CETINFO cleanupThread: 0.096 seconds for cleanupEvent() NOTICE: Slony-I: Logswitch to sl_log_2 initiated CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT "_pp_config_rep".logswitch_start()" So it was doing something, but now you mention it, there are no SYNCs, so perhaps it wasn't subscribed. This is the log for the slave, and it says there "storeSubscribe". doesn't that mean it received a SUBSCRIBE_SET? > What is sl_subscribe on node 2 at this point in time? > Does node 2 have a record in sl_event of it having processed those two > events? Unfortunately I don't have that information available, but it looks like pilot error (the user claimed there were no errors) after all: the subscribe didn't work. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I in strange state after attempted unsubscribe/resubscribe
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I in strange state after attempted unsubscribe/resubscribe
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list