Sebastien Lardiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:55:42 +0100, Sebastien Lardiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >>>> Shouldn't node 2 and/or 3 be forwarder if you want to use one of them >> as >>> a >>>> master ? >>> >>> You're right, i enable forward for 2 and 3, and then failover work. >>> > > Ok, it work, and i understand why i've got some error : > > - I have to set all direct receiver with forward = yes > > - When I do failover, i have to wait before send "drop node" for remover the > old master. > > Perhaps somewhere in the documentation, it could be write that in case of > failover, future master and direct receiver have to be set with forward = yes > ?
I'm adding this in more expressly in a couple of places (best practices, slonik reference). -- (format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html Referring to undocumented private communications allows one to claim virtually anything: "we discussed this idea in our working group last year, and concluded that it was totally brain-damaged". -- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
