On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 11:02:00PM -0800, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Nor would I, but one possibility that comes to mind is adding the  
> ability to determine the sequence of transaction commits. Currently,  
> Slony has no choice but to skip from one consistent state to the  
> next, and for at least some of that it also has to know what XIDs  
> were uncommitted in a batch. I have to wonder if there's a better way.

The "skip from one consistent state to the next" is a feature, not a
bug.  We don't apply in commit order because of the sort costs for
that.  What we can do instead is replicate in any "agreeable order"
that does not break the replica's ability to represent the state of
the origin.  

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what 
you told them to.  That actually seems sort of quaint now.
		--J.D. Baldwin