Tue Jun 14 21:13:09 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Slony1-commit] By cbbrowne: A number of formatting changes...
- Next message: [Slony1-commit] By cbbrowne: Add a discussion of what to expect to find in Slony-I logs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Log Message: ----------- We have a resolution to the "duplicate key" problem with PG 7.4.8; change the FAQ discussion to better reflect this. Modified Files: -------------- slony1-engine/doc/adminguide: faq.sgml (r1.38 -> r1.39) -------------- next part -------------- Index: faq.sgml =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/slony1/slony1-engine/doc/adminguide/faq.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.38 retrieving revision 1.39 diff -Ldoc/adminguide/faq.sgml -Ldoc/adminguide/faq.sgml -u -w -r1.38 -r1.39 --- doc/adminguide/faq.sgml +++ doc/adminguide/faq.sgml @@ -684,8 +684,8 @@ &slony1; groups 10 update queries together to diminish the number of network round trips.</para></question> -<answer><para> A <emphasis>certain</emphasis> cause for this has not -yet been arrived at.</para> +<answer><para> A <emphasis>certain</emphasis> cause for this has been +difficult to arrive at.</para> <para>By the time we notice that there is a problem, the seemingly missed delete transaction has been cleaned out of <xref @@ -704,10 +704,6 @@ diagnosing it more exactly. And perhaps the problem was that <xref linkend="table.sl-log-1"> was being purged too aggressively, and this would resolve the issue completely.</para> -</answer> - -<answer><para> Unfortunately, this problem has been observed in 1.0.5, -so this still appears to represent a bug still in existence.</para> <para> It is a shame to have to reconstruct a large replication node for this; if you discover that this problem recurs, it may be an idea @@ -731,12 +727,13 @@ <para> On at least one occasion, this has resolved the problem, so it is worth trying this.</para> +</answer> -<para> This problem represents a &postgres; bug as opposed to one in -&slony1;. Version 7.4.8 was released with two resolutions to race -conditions that should resolve the issue. Thus, if you are running a -version of &postgres; earlier than 7.4.8, you should consider -upgrading to resolve this. +<answer> <para> This problem has been found to represent a &postgres; +bug as opposed to one in &slony1;. Version 7.4.8 was released with +two resolutions to race conditions that should resolve the issue. +Thus, if you are running a version of &postgres; earlier than 7.4.8, +you should consider upgrading to resolve this. </para> </answer> </qandaentry>
- Previous message: [Slony1-commit] By cbbrowne: A number of formatting changes...
- Next message: [Slony1-commit] By cbbrowne: Add a discussion of what to expect to find in Slony-I logs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-commit mailing list