Hi Jan, it's great to get confirmation from the list maintainer, now I have the confidence to go ahead with my deployment. Will still do further tests nonetheless:) Thanks a million.
Regards On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:50:23 -0500, "Jan Wieck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 3/16/2006 12:06 AM, Andrew Ng wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > below is my assumption regarding failover, so please correct me if I'm > > wrong - > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > a table T is created with primary key K (sequence), Slony is configured > > to replicate both table T and primary key K. When a failover is made, > > there could be a short instance where new row(s) are inserted and > > replicated to the slave, but the sequence's last value is still not > > updated at the slave. As such, subsequent inserts would fail with > > duplicate key error until the slave's value is adjusted, manually or > > otherwise. > > This can't happen. Sequences are replicated in a fashion that allows > them to be more advanced than the data that is actually replicated. In > case of a failover you would therefore see a gap in the keys, which is > likely to be equal to the missing transactions that got lost in the > failover. > > > Jan > > -- > #======================================================================# > # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # > # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # > #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # -- Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
