<div class="gmail_quote">My last email was written before reading this. A few episodes of 24 occurred between writing and sending that email.<br><br>Added slony1-hackers, but didn't remove pgsql-hackers. Feel free to exclude pgsql lists, as this branch of conversation seems to be more Slony related than Postgres.<br>
<br>On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Christopher Browne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cbbrowne@gmail.com" target="_blank">cbbrowne@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br></div>In Slony 2.1, the issue re-emerged because the ordering of the "action id" values was lost; the query had previously been implicitly forcing them into order; we had to add an "ORDER BY" clause, to make the "compressor" work again.<br>
<a href="http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=slony1-engine.git;a=blobdiff;f=src/slon/remote_worker.c;h=b1f48043f8e25b4a74a392b0dbceeae8f3e18c27;hp=7fbf67c16f97cb7c3f209cf3be903ea52c4490a9;hb=c4ac435308a78a2db63bf267d401d842c169e87d;hpb=d4612aab78bac5a9836e3e2425c403878f7091c8" target="_blank">http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=slony1-engine.git;a=blobdiff;f=src/slon/remote_worker.c;h=b1f48043f8e25b4a74a392b0dbceeae8f3e18c27;hp=7fbf67c16f97cb7c3f209cf3be903ea52c4490a9;hb=c4ac435308a78a2db63bf267d401d842c169e87d;hpb=d4612aab78bac5a9836e3e2425c403878f7091c8</a><br>
<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Commit log says it was fixed between 2.1.2, but from the Slony logs at the time, the version in use was 2.1.2. So <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div></div>Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly enormous query as is generated by the broken forms of this logic to turn out happily. I'd rather fix Slony (as done in the above patch).<br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>Yes, by all means, fix the application, but that doesn't preclude the argument that the database should be a bit more smarter and efficient, especially if it is easy to do.<br><br>Best regards,<br>
-- <br><div dir="ltr">Gurjeet Singh<br><br><a href="http://gurjeet.singh.im/" target="_blank">http://gurjeet.singh.im/</a><br><br>EnterpriseDB Inc.<br></div>