Am Sonntag, den 29.10.2006, 11:43 -0500 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 05:24:33PM +0100, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> > Actually, you need to get the schema from the master node, and can take
> > the data from a slave. In mixing dumps like that, you must realize that
> > there are
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 05:24:33PM +0100, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> Actually, you need to get the schema from the master node, and can take
> the data from a slave. In mixing dumps like that, you must realize that
> there are two seperate parts in the schema dump: "table definitions" and
> "constra
Am Sonntag, den 29.10.2006, 10:34 -0500 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 03:08:26PM +, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> >
> > This is interesting, but I don't understand.. We've done a full restore
> > from one of these pg_dump backups before now and it worked just great.
> >
> > Sure
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 03:08:26PM +, Gavin Hamill wrote:
>
> This is interesting, but I don't understand.. We've done a full restore
> from one of these pg_dump backups before now and it worked just great.
>
> Sure I had to DROP SCHEMA _replication CASCADE to clear out all the
> slony-specif
Hi :)
[pg_dump from a Slony replica]
> That's not the problem. The problem is that when you restore the
> dump of the slave, you'll have garbage. Slony fools with the
> catalogs on the replicas.
> (And you might as well throw away the
> dumpfiles from the replicas that you have. They won'
Ok, I see Tom has diagnosed your problem. Here are more hints
anyway:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:20:25AM +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> > table bloat in various slony-related tables.
>
> I know it takes longer, I know it blocks. It's never been a problem
The problem from a VACUUM FULL is that its
