No, its not smart enough to do that. If you loose a master node, its in your best interest to get it back up and running ASAP as it is the master of the configuration.
Furthermore, if you tell a slave to sync back to the master you will end up in a never ending sync loop. On 3/6/06, Amorim, Nuno Alexandre (ext) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Does the synchronization work both ways? From master to slave and slave to > master? > > The scenario I'm thinking is the master goes down, and one changes some > rules on the slave node. When the master comes up, slave sends the new > configuration.
