I might have fixed that in a pull request. Kills were not always being
done on kids immediately. It's a one-line change.
https://github.com/bucardo/bucardo/pull/43
<https://github.com/bucardo/bucardo/pull/43>
On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Błażej Cegiełka wrote:
Hi all
I was testing scenario in which to already existed sync&relgroup i
want to add another table - empty one,
and then insert data.
commands looks like:
{code}
# add new table to relgroup which is used by sync
bucardo add table new_table relgroup=tables_group
# bounce of bucardo required to reload config
bucardo stop
bucardo start
# insert data
insert_data_funky_script.sh
{code}
And as stop/start are not waiting for kids, immediate start after
stop, can results with failure and daemon will not start.
Also immediate data insertions when KID (for the sync) is not yet
prepared, can results with no data population (no entries in
bucardo.track_* tables)
Q1: What do you think if start/stop will wait for subprocesses?
Q2: In current solution i need to wait for sync end to do some next
inserts on other servers.
How i can be sure about that? (other way than checking delta&track
tables)
So far i know that stopping daemon will not guarantee that all deltas
will be populated.
But it looks that
{code}
bucardo status all
{code}
gives that information in 'Current state fields', is that correct?
Regards
Błażej
_______________________________________________
Bucardo-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended
only for the recipients named above. It may contain confidential or privileged
information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other
person. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender of that fact
and delete the e-mail from your system.
_______________________________________________
Bucardo-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.endcrypt.com/mailman/listinfo/bucardo-general
