In message <1357207431.43.0.96131456964.issue2550731@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> 
<1357207431.43.0.96131456964.issue2550731@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>,
Bernhard Reiter writes:
>Bernhard Reiter added the comment:
>
>| >Was the fact that you were using a remote postresgl database
>| >important for the reproduction of your unwanted behaviour?
>| Yes it was.
>
>Hmm, so a local postgresql database would work? This would pose
>the question what the difference between a local and a remote
>postresgql database is. Some timelag in the connection? Probably not.
>Some driving code using the connection in different - say blocking -
>manner?

Ah, I am not sure about local/vs remote database. I did not see the
issue with the local file databases dbm/sqlite. I was told at the time
that the big difference was serial vs parallel access to the database.

>Could you attach or send me all the infos or files that you have that
>make me or someone else be able to reproduce your issue as easily
>as possible? Send it to me personally, if you cannot attach it here.
>I may be willing to look into it, and the faster I can get to the point
>to reproduce the behaviour you having difficulties with, the higher the
>change that I can help. :)

The patch file for roundup is on the the issue already and the
additional detector change and the problem I see is described at:

  http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29359236

I'll try to get that integrated into a working detector (auditor
really) this weekend, but that should give you enough info to set up
your own. I am not sure if it is a problem with journaling or the
flow through the detectors.

I was talking with somebody at the LISA conference a few weeks ago and
mentioned that the journaling was wrong and he said that it may be a
known bug as he saw something similar but I never got any additional
info.