On 6/7/2004 2:33 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 06:20, Jan Wieck wrote:
I tend to agree with you that spurious SYNC's aren't the end of the
world. The idea of using notify to tell the syncThread somthing happened
is probably the right way to do it, but at this time a little invasive.
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 06:20, Jan Wieck wrote:
> I tend to agree with you that spurious SYNC's aren't the end of the
> world. The idea of using notify to tell the syncThread somthing happened
> is probably the right way to do it, but at this time a little invasive.
> We need more time to investig
I tend to agree with you that spurious SYNC's aren't the end of the
world. The idea of using notify to tell the syncThread somthing happened
is probably the right way to do it, but at this time a little invasive.
We need more time to investigate how to avoid notice storms during high
update act
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 10:32, Jan Wieck wrote:
> You are right. The "local" slon node checks every "-s" milliseconds
> (commandline switch) if the sequence sl_action_seq has changed, and if
> so generate a SYNC event. Bumping a sequence alone does not cause this,
> only operations that invoke the
On 6/6/2004 5:21 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
I have two nodes, node 1 and node 2.
Both are working with node 1 as the master, and data from subscribed
tables is being properly replicated to node 2.
However, it looks like there's a possible bug with sequences. First let
me explain that I don't entirely
I have two nodes, node 1 and node 2.
Both are working with node 1 as the master, and data from subscribed
tables is being properly replicated to node 2.
However, it looks like there's a possible bug with sequences. First let
me explain that I don't entirely understand how a replicated sequence
