I still have doubt that on Slony docunment it use the word "set transfer" ,
"set moved". The "set" here descirbing, does the SET including the data in
the table that belongs to the set??

If set got moved or transfered, does the data within the table includes in
the set all transfer to the new node for switch over (set got switched
between two nodes) and failover situation(set moved to the new node)? 

Huang


roctaiwan wrote:
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> Then from what you said. Data within the tables between old master and new
> master will be different? then original master has all the data but now
> after failover Node 1 (original master ) got dropped and Node 2 is the new
> master. if node 2 don't have all the up-to-date data for ALL tables (from
> #12345 tables) then where does slaves getting data from?? This is the part
> where I want to get straight with. 
> 
> Also, Node 2 the new master but originally the slave 1 has table set for 1
> and 2. After failover which slave is the provider for table set 1 and 2
> ???
> 
> 
> Regard, 
> 
> Huang
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan-8 wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:59:13PM -0700, roctaiwan wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> 
>>> If I understand the slony replication correct, is that after I do
>>> switchover
>>> or failover what it can do is promote another node to replace its origin
>>> node. 
>> 
>> Hold on: switchover and failover are completely different.  Failover
>> abandons the former origin.  Switchover does not.  Switchover is
>> intelligent about this, but failover just takes over at the new node
>> at whatever stage that node is in.  This works on a _set_, and not on
>> the node as such.
>> 
>>> If lets say failover, after origin node failed and another node
>>> replaced it, all other slave nodes in group will seek for sets from new
>>> master, basically failover script will change the "provider" from
>>> subscribe
>>> set command to the new master node. Therefore, new master should first
>>> sync
>>> with old master with all the data and having all sets isn't it? 
>> 
>> Not for failover, no.  Switchover does this in a controlled manner,
>> and therefore moves the set at a logical point in time for that set.
>>  
>>> Let's say Old master(node 1) has five tables (table 1,2,3,4,5) and new
>>> master (node 2) has only (table 1 and 2). After switch over or failover
>>> to
>>> the new master (node 2), will node 2 sync with old master and has all 5
>>> tables? 
>> 
>> I don't think so, no.
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at crankycanuck.ca
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/How-exactly-replication-works-for-different-sets-on-different-nodes--tp25056529p25711144.html
Sent from the Slony-I -- General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.