On 8/31/2007 10:08 AM, Cyril SCETBON wrote:
> 
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 8/31/2007 4:43 AM, Cyril SCETBON wrote:
>>>
>>> Cyril SCETBON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:18PM +0200, Cyril SCETBON wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> So, How can I do if M2 is lost ? Cause I don't want S2 to resync 
>>>>>> with M1 from scratch
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't.  If you can't co-ordinate a switchover, then you lose the
>>>>> node.  This is discussed at length in the manual.
>>>>>   
>>>> Really ????
>>>> Are you really saying that losing M2 make me lose S2 ?????
>>>> If it's true I'm really disappointed by slony :-(
>>>>
>>>> My config is as follows (just to remember) :
>>>>
>>>> psql db1 -c 'select * from "_CLUSTER1".sl_subscribe'
>>>> sub_set | sub_provider | sub_receiver | sub_forward | sub_active
>>>> ---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+------------
>>>>      1 |            1 (M1)|            3 (M2)| t           | t
>>>>      1 |            1 (M1)|            2 (S1) | t           | t
>>>>      1 |            3 (M2)|            4 (S2) | t           | t
>>
>> Since all nodes in your scenario are forwarders, you won't lose 
>> anything other than the failed node ever. In your configuration if you 
>> lose node M2 (which is a subscriber), simply issuing a new SUBSCRIBE 
>> SET for node S2 to use M1 or S1 as data provider will do. It will 
>> catch up from there without the need to sync from scratch.
> I tried reshaping subscription. The subscription works. But no more 
> updates go to S2.

Check the sl_path configuration. S2 might not have the necessary (or 
correct) information to connect to its new data provider.


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 #