On 06/30/2014 01:05 PM, Soni M wrote:
> it seems a slony process that has <IDLE> in transaction for many times.
> the client address and the user are identical to slony slave.
>
>

Which version of slony are you on?



> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Soni M <diptatapa at gmail.com
> <mailto:diptatapa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Steve Singer
>     <ssinger at ca.afilias.info <mailto:ssinger at ca.afilias.info>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Which transactions are locking sl_log_2 when slony is in that state?
>
>         The slony log trigger should only be adding rows to sl_log_1 in
>         this state.   If this isn't the case then there is a problem.
>
>         The problem with waiting for the lock is other transactions will
>         the block and queue up behind the cleanup thread/transaction.
>
>
>
>     I saw this query from slony slave :
>
>     fetch 500 from LOG;
>
>     but another time it is
>
>     <IDLE> in transaction
>
>     that has lock on sl_log_2. The <IDLE> in transaction appear much
>     more often.
>
>     --
>     Regards,
>
>     Soni Maula Harriz
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Soni Maula Harriz