On 2013-09-09T17:22:14, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > a) When pacemaker and all other commandline tool can live
> > nicely with multiple meta-attributes sections (it seems to
> > be allowed by the xml definition) and address all nvpairs
> > just by name beneath this tag, than crm should insert or
> > change only one instance of that nvpair. Demoting via crm_resource
> > should have worked with this, shouldn't it?
> If there are multiple attributes sets, then you need to specify
> the id if you want crm_resource to operate on any of these.
If there are multiple ones not further affected by any rules, pick
either the one which already has the attribute name or the first one?
> > b) When the duplication of the meta-attriutes section by
> > itself is problematic I would expect crm refusing or
> > at least warning about that construct.
> Right, it should do something about it.
Is this something created by crmsh or crm_attribute?
> > What do you think?
> Since multiple attribute sets are allowed, then we need to
> support them too. However, in a case like this one, I guess that
> we should've put together the two attribute sets.
I'm not perfectly sure. We need to understand how they were created; I'm
pretty sure that we should not *insert* them first time; not even when
the user does something silly like
primitive ... \
meta ... \
params ... \
meta ...
Then they ought to be merged, I think.
But if they already exist, merging them silently probably isn't so hot.
> Could you please open a bug report. It seems like we'd need to
> track the discussion and possible solutions.
Thanks!
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
