Re: syncrepl questions

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>> Of course, to ensure consistency between the masters would require
>>> use of a two-phase commit transaction capabilities. 
>>
>>Um.  I didn't understand that, and I'm not sure if I want to:-)
> 
> I was referring to transactions between the
> client and the server to ensure the client could
> rollback changes made to one server if it wasn't
> able to make them on another.

Oh.  Yes, that sounds _very_ nice to have...

I think it's a separate problem, though.  After all, normal replication
can fail too, and that doesn't rollback any changes on the master.

It would be a problem with atomic 'update and sync' operations, but a
separate 'sync this DN' LDAP operation after the update could return
failure if one or more updates failed.  Then the user will have to
handle the problem by rebuilding the databases or something if they have
become inconsistent.  Thats what we do today when an update fails.  It's
doesn't happen often.

-- 
Hallvard