On 10-11-23 05:01 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Christopher Browne
> <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info>  wrote:
> The idea discussed on the mailing list is to have Slony take out an
> advisory lock before attempting to lock tables and releasing that lock
> afterwards. At the start of a transaction, my application would block
> until that advisory lock is available. This way, Slony can actually be
> granted locks on a busy system. Currently, in some situations Slony
> will never be granted the locks because there is always at least one
> transaction in progress reading the resources it is attempting to
> lock.
>
> I imagine this behavior would only occur if the site has configured
> which number to use as the lock.
>

I've added this to the wiki page along with a link to the prior email 
discussion mentioning this.