<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Steve Singer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ssinger@ca.afilias.info" target="_blank">ssinger@ca.afilias.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">On 10/29/2014 10:21 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Tory M Blue <<a href="mailto:tmblue@gmail.com" target="_blank">tmblue@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:tmblue@gmail.com" target="_blank">tmblue@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Well definitely still doing something, just wish it was enough for my<br>
system to notice.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Did you change maintenance workmem before the index rebuild started?<br>
Also, how many indexes are on the table just 1 (the primary key) index?<br>
If there is more than 1 you might want to drop the others before you subscribe the table and them concurrently later.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I did not it was set at 2GB prior to it starting. What is weird is that pgstat doesn't show an index creation </div><div><br></div><div> 16398 | clsdb | 54600 | 10 | postgres | slon.remoteWorkerThread_1 | 10.13.200.232 | | 54260 | 2014-10-28 22:19:29.277022-07 | 2014-10-29 00:05:40.884649-07 | 2014-10-29 01:17:22.102619-07 | 2014-10-29</div><div> 01:17:22.10262-07 | f | active | select "_cls".finishTableAfterCopy(143); analyze "torque"."impressions"; </div><div><br></div><div>So not quite sure what it's been doing since well 1:17am PST.. and it's still sitting there.. Not seeing any growth on disk the single process is still sitting at 97-100% cpu.</div><div><br></div><div>Ya starting to feel like doing index post is a good idea and something I looked into earlier this year/last year. But at this point if I restart slon, this process dies with it and it will attempt to resubscribe this set so I will have lost 7 hours and it will have to move the 52GB of data over the wire again and then do "whatever the above command is doing".. Not in dire straights yet 6million rows backed up, I think if I hit 8M I'll have to abort and try again.</div><div><br></div><div>I have 3 sets, set 1 finished cleanly, set 3 has not obviously been attempted. I'm wondering if I can do something with 2 and let it complete 3. Well anyways ..bahh!!: ) I wish restarting slon would not abort the work thus far..</div><div><br></div><div>Tory</div></div></div></div>