Actually I think it is because a pg_dump of the db is going on.

Can you dump a slave ?

Do you have to exclude the slony clusters (which would make sense)?

Thanks,

Dave

Dave Cramer

On 16 October 2014 10:34, Glyn Astill <glynastill at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > From: Dave Cramer <davecramer at gmail.com>
> >To: slony <slony1-general at lists.slony.info>
> >Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2014, 11:19
> >Subject: [Slony1-general] Lag time increasing but there are no events
> >
> >
> >
> >I have a situation I can't explain.
> >
> >
> >sl_status shows lag time increasing. num events is 0, and the data is
> being replicated.
> >
> >
> >What exactly does lag_time represent ?
> >
> >
>
> My considerably fuzzy understanding is that it's essentially the time
> difference between the timestamp for the last received event in sl_confirm
> and the current timestamp so (current_timestmp-st_last_received_event_ts)
>
> I guess you've made sure the time is synchronized on all the nodes? That's
> the first thing I'd be checking as I'd expect to see a positive value in
> st_lag_num_events too if st_lag_time were going up.
>
> Is there anything out of place in the slon logs and have you tried
> restarting the slon daemons?  There's also the lag_interval parameter to
> look at, I've no idea how sl_status would look if that were set, but any
> chance it is?
>
>
> Personally I'd be digging into the sl_confirm and sl_event tables to look
> for some sort of clue if none of the above were fruitful.  Something like
> the below, which more likely than not isn't completely correct:
>
> select e.ev_origin, c.con_received, e.ev_seqno,
> (c.con_timestamp-e.ev_timestamp)
> from sl_event e inner join sl_confirm c on e.ev_seqno = con_seqno and
> e.ev_origin = c.con_origin
> order by (c.con_timestamp-e.ev_timestamp) desc;
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20141016/8179f290/attachment.htm