On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Raghav wrote:

> Aha,,, for a moment I thought I was on wrong page, but am very much on right page. I can see my
> posting on Slony Mailing list
> Archives. http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/2012-June/author.html
> 
> Can you guys share your thoughts on my query. To fast the slave sync catch up, I disabled
> Autovacuum and increase memory parameters at database level, coming to slony level, I played a bit
> with sync_interval & sync_interval_timeout, but it didnt helped me much. 

Someone asked a similar question a few days ago, my comments 
http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/2012-June/012217.html 
mostly apply to you as well.

The Slony initial COPY SET needs to copy the entire contents of the table. 
This will be no faster than the time it would take to perform a pg_dump. 
Normal rules for speed up bulk loads with postgresql apply.  Are you IO 
bound, CPU bound or network bound?

The sync_interval and sync_interval_timeout only come into play AFTER the 
initial copy_set is done (I think).

Steve

> --Raghav
> 
>