Great. Thanks!

- DAP 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Browne [mailto:cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:36 AM
>To: David Parker
>Cc: slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] 1.0.6?
>
>David Parker wrote:
>
>>There was some discussion recently on this list about whether 
>a 1.0.6 release was in the offing or not. Apart from the 
>specific issue (min XID, I think it was), are there other 
>fixes to 1.0.5 waiting in the wings to go out? 
>>
>>I am still at 1.0.2, and getting ready to move to 1.0.5, but 
>if 1.0.6 is in the pipeline, then maybe I'll wait. 
>>
>>Also, are there critical reasons to move from 1.0.2 to 1.0.5, 
>apart from just wanting to be current? I haven't run into any 
>problems, but I have a pretty simple topology (about to become 
>significantly more complex), and have not had serious 
>performance testing....
>>  
>>
>The particular problem that caused me to "wonder aloud" if 
>1.0.6 might be necessary turned out to relate to an 
>application error.  (Simply
>put:  Long running transactions are evil.  Long running <IDLE> 
>in transaction is, because it is more nearly invisible, REALLY evil...)
>
>So I don't expect 1.0.6 is imminent.
>
>I would suggest that you go ahead with 1.0.5; there are rather 
>a lot of little improvements in it that "add up." 
>
>- The cleanup thread (recently at issue) is _way_ improved in 
>1.0.5 over 1.0.2.  And if you're planning to increase the 
>topology of your network, the improvements to cleanup are very 
>significant.
>
>- If you ever have slons fall down due to servers falling 
>over, 1.0.5 copes with restarting them MUCH better; where, in 
>1.0.2, you might have to manually intervene to do a "RESET 
>NODE", 1.0.5 does some config cleanup at start time.
>
>- It took us quite a while to get all the testing done to get 
>1.0.5 into place; the "mantra" that kept getting recited 
>nearly every time an issue came up was "Oh, that's fixed in 1.0.5."
>