Log Message:
-----------
We have a resolution to the "duplicate key" problem with PG 7.4.8;
change the FAQ discussion to better reflect this.

Modified Files:
--------------
    slony1-engine/doc/adminguide:
        faq.sgml (r1.38 -> r1.39)

-------------- next part --------------
Index: faq.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/slony1/slony1-engine/doc/adminguide/faq.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.38
retrieving revision 1.39
diff -Ldoc/adminguide/faq.sgml -Ldoc/adminguide/faq.sgml -u -w -r1.38 -r1.39
--- doc/adminguide/faq.sgml
+++ doc/adminguide/faq.sgml
@@ -684,8 +684,8 @@
 &slony1; groups 10 update queries together
 to diminish the number of network round trips.</para></question>
 
-<answer><para> A <emphasis>certain</emphasis> cause for this has not
-yet been arrived at.</para>
+<answer><para> A <emphasis>certain</emphasis> cause for this has been
+difficult to arrive at.</para>
 
 <para>By the time we notice that there is a problem, the seemingly
 missed delete transaction has been cleaned out of <xref
@@ -704,10 +704,6 @@
 diagnosing it more exactly.  And perhaps the problem was that <xref
 linkend="table.sl-log-1"> was being purged too aggressively, and this
 would resolve the issue completely.</para>
-</answer>
-
-<answer><para> Unfortunately, this problem has been observed in 1.0.5,
-so this still appears to represent a bug still in existence.</para>
 
 <para> It is a shame to have to reconstruct a large replication node
 for this; if you discover that this problem recurs, it may be an idea
@@ -731,12 +727,13 @@
 
 <para> On at least one occasion, this has resolved the problem, so it
 is worth trying this.</para>
+</answer>
 
-<para> This problem represents a &postgres; bug as opposed to one in
-&slony1;.  Version 7.4.8 was released with two resolutions to race
-conditions that should resolve the issue.  Thus, if you are running a
-version of &postgres; earlier than 7.4.8, you should consider
-upgrading to resolve this.
+<answer> <para> This problem has been found to represent a &postgres;
+bug as opposed to one in &slony1;.  Version 7.4.8 was released with
+two resolutions to race conditions that should resolve the issue.
+Thus, if you are running a version of &postgres; earlier than 7.4.8,
+you should consider upgrading to resolve this.
 </para>
 </answer>
 </qandaentry>