Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6519FB388 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:34:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90773-07 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:34:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064979FB276 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:34:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227] helo=phlogiston.dydns.org) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GeCfI-0006Di-9f for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:33:36 -0500 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA8D941A2; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:34:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:34:04 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: VACUUMs take twice as long across all nodes Message-ID: <20061029153404.GF14585@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <20061026095827.9e85e1c0.gdh@laterooms.com> <20196.1161874041@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20061026160609.5e94e581.gdh@laterooms.com> <20061026191728.GD26892@nasby.net> <20061026213556.174bd7b5.gdh@laterooms.com> <20061026220937.GA6866@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <20061027102025.8183c5d9.gdh@laterooms.com> <20061029145825.GB14585@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <20061029150826.80afe324.gdh@laterooms.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061029150826.80afe324.gdh@laterooms.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/602 X-Sequence-Number: 21731 On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 03:08:26PM +0000, 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-specific triggers etc., but the new-master ran fine, as did > firing up new replication to the other nodes :) > > Was I just lucky? Yes. Slony alters data in the system catalog for a number of database objects on the replicas. It does this in order to prevent, for example, triggers from firing both on the origin and the replica. (That is the one that usually bites people hardest, but IIRC it's not the only such hack in there.) This was a bit of a dirty hack that was supposed to be cleaned up, but that hasn't been yet. In general, you can't rely on a pg_dump of a replica giving you a dump that, when restored, actually works. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca Everything that happens in the world happens at some place. --Jane Jacobs