> > > Question: Could it be that a failover was triggered for a different > > > number of rows in a previous version? We were under the impression > > that > > > this was the behaviour. > > > > > > Thanks a lot, > > > Ger. > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > Could someone kindly give me an answer to the questions above? I do > > think this is an important issue. > > I have the same question. I thought that different number of rows was > triggering a failover, but tests with pgpool-II 2.2.2 have not shown > this behavior. However, I DO have seen this behavior before. Any other > answering this question, please?
I don't believe so. Can you prvide concrete examples? i.e. pgpool-II version, data and SQL. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
