On 11/13/13 13:48, bugzilla-daemon at main.slony.info wrote:
> http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=324
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Wieck <janwieck at yahoo.com> 2013-11-13 13:48:43 PST ---
> I do see the order by clause on the log_actionseq select in the REL_2_1_STABLE
> branch, but the log snippet you pasted clearly shows those numbers out of
> order. Can you try to reindex the sl_log_* tables?
>
> Note that in 2.2 the problem is gone entirely because we no longer use the
> log_actionseq for that. Instead the log selection for the first SYNC after
> subscribe is based on the snapshot of the copy_set() operation. At the time we
> did not feel comfortable to backpatch that into 2.1. That might be a reasonable
> thing to do now.
>

I actually went and downloaded the source for 2.1.4 and 2.1.3 and both of them
appear to have the ORDER BY, so I'm not sure what's going on here.

Unfortunately, I truncated the sl_log_* tables so we could get this sync
completed as it's holding up a migration.

How stable is 2.2.1 considered?


-- 
Jeff Frost <jeff at pgexperts.com>
CTO, PostgreSQL Experts, Inc.
Phone: 1-888-PG-EXPRT x506
FAX: 415-762-5122
http://www.pgexperts.com/