Thu Dec 9 13:37:56 PST 2010
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 174] Isolated Nodes
- Next message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 175] New: Monitoring cluster better
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Browne <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> 2010-12-09 13:37:56 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Proposed... Add a table that will be replicated via event publishing that > > captures tuples of the form [excluder, excludee] > > > > That is, node [excluder] will ignore events coming from node [excludee]. > > > > (Open question: Will it just be SYNC events that are ignored? Seems quite > > likely apropos...) > > How would WAIT FOR (todays manual WAIT FOR - ignoring any automatic one) work > if you ignore non sync events? > Also, just because node 1 is excluding node 4 doesn't mean that node 3 is > excluding node 4 (it probably isn't). How will WAIT FOR change. If it's only present in the new world (e.g. - where WAIT is implicit), then that's not *totally* important :-). But sure, it's a good question. I imagine the result is that events from Node A will get ignored on Node B. WAIT FOR presently has 2 forms: a) WAIT FOR a particular node; this only breaks down if you ask to wait for an event from Node A arriving at Node B. I think we can make such a request error out - it's not sensible to ask for this if there's an "exclusion" present. b) WAIT FOR ALL. I expect we'd have these requests ignore exclusions. Seems sensible? > Also what are the implications with respect to FAILOVER and MOVE SET or > rehshaping a subscription for this change. I expect we have to refuse these requests. It shouldn't be problematic to add tests similar to <https://github.com/cbbrowne/slony1-engine/commit/796df78da7e8e639e7df2df642800671ca945b04> to FAILOVER and MOVE SET. > Also can you propose some syntax for making a node excluded? > > What happens if you no longer want a node to be excluded? Especially if the > events have already been deleted on the excluder. I'd think slonik syntax would look like: IGNORE NODE (IGNORE ID=2, IGNORE BY=4); UNIGNORE NODE( ID=2, IGNORE BY=4); Whether events have been deleted or not seems beside the point; that's a question at the time of SUBSCRIBE SET, MOVE SET, FAILOVER. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 174] Isolated Nodes
- Next message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 175] New: Monitoring cluster better
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-bugs mailing list