On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:50:44AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:27:47PM -0700, elein wrote:
> > Yes, it should. But it doesn't.  I believe any message is ever
> > sent to the 3rd node. This is the same in my example.  See also the sl_setsync
> > table.  It has a reference to node 1 (or 10).
> 
> Do we have a reproducible case yet?  It sure looks like a bug, but
> without being able to isolate it, I dunno how we're going to fix it.

Chris has been able to reproduce this:
http://gborg.postgresql.org/pipermail/slony1-general/2005-September/003051.html

Tim

> 
> A
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
> The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
> 		--George Orwell
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general

-- 
Tim Goodaire    416-673-4126    tgoodair at ca.afilias.info
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://gborg.postgresql.org/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20051005/b2c16d1f/attachment-0001.bin