El Viernes, 18 de Febrero de 2005 13:00, Jan Wieck escribi?:
> On 2/18/2005 4:10 AM, ?ncor Gonz?lez Sosa wrote:
> > I mean, Table1 in Host1 is a master of Table1 in Host2 and Table1 in
> > Host2 is a master of Table1 in Host1. Of course, there is not conflict
> > resolution at all but, at least, there are not infinite loops of updates
> > (if unnecessary updates are skipped) unless when a same record is updated
> > in both databases "simultaneously". In fact, it's not a real multimaster
> > system because there are a lot of situations that must be explicitly
> > avoided by the applications using the databases but...
> >
> > Would it work? Would it explode?
>
> I think it could have some very "funny" side effects. Suppose node1
> updates a value to A and node 2 does simultaneously update it to B. Now
> both replicate their changes so node1 ends up with B and node2 ends up
> with A. I want to see the faces of the users ;-)

In fact, I suposse this situation would cause a infinite loop. After this 
change, the A->B change of node2 would be replicated in node1 and the B->A 
change in node1 would be replicated in node1 and start again and again and 
again...

Those are the reasons for which I said that the applications should explicitly 
avoid a lot of conflict situations. But, aside those conflict conditions... 
would it work? There is another drawback aside the lack of conflict 
resolution?

> Jan

Greetings
-- 
                                        .--.       
  LINUX                                |o_o |      
                                       |?_/ |      
  Usuario registrado #239475          //   \ \     
                                     (|     | )    
  ?ncor Gonz?lez Sosa               /'\_   _/`\    
  ancorgs at softhome.net              \___)=(___/    
                                                   
  Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (Woody)