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" <JanWieck at Yahoo.com>
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.                                  #
> #================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #
-- 
  Andrew Ng
  ngandrew at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail