Comment 7 for bug 673105

I found a simpler diff on one of these runs. Here, it appears that the slave tables are missing two rows that exist in the master.

Looking deeper, it appears that two DELETE's conflicted.
In the transaction log in the tarball, there are two transactions:
transaction id: 2077 and 2081
Both of these are DELETE's against table cc and both reference pk 1236 and pk 1237.

Transaction 2081 only delete's these pk's. It should be noted that transaction id 2081 is repeated 5x in the log file.
Transaction 2077 deletes 1236, 1237, 1238, and 1239.
I suspect that these two queries conflicted:
There are other queries happening at the same time, but these are

DELETE FROM `cc` WHERE `col_text` < 'x' ORDER BY `col_bigint`,`col_bigint_key`,`col_bigint_not_null`,`col_bigint_not_null_key`,`col_char_10`,`col_char_1024`,`col_char_1024_key`,`col_char_1024_not_null`,`col_char_1024_not_null_key`,`col_char_10_key`,`col_char_10_not_null`,`col_char_10_not_null_key`,`col_enum`,`col_enum_key`,`col_enum_not_null`,`col_enum_not_null_key`,`col_int`,`col_int_key`,`col_int_not_null`,`col_int_not_null_key`,`col_text`,`col_text_key`,`col_text_not_null`,`col_text_not_null_key`,`pk` LIMIT 2 /*Generated by THREAD_ID 4*/;

 DELETE FROM `cc` WHERE `col_text_not_null` < 'y' ORDER BY `col_bigint`,`col_bigint_key`,`col_bigint_not_null`,`col_bigint_not_null_key`,`col_char_10`,`col_char_1024`,`col_char_1024_key`,`col_char_1024_not_null`,`col_char_1024_not_null_key`,`col_char_10_key`,`col_char_10_not_null`,`col_char_10_not_null_key`,`col_enum`,`col_enum_key`,`col_enum_not_null`,`col_enum_not_null_key`,`col_int`,`col_int_key`,`col_int_not_null`,`col_int_not_null_key`,`col_text`,`col_text_key`,`col_text_not_null`,`col_text_not_null_key`,`pk` LIMIT 2 /*Generated by THREAD_ID 5*/ ;