Re: Syncrepl logging question

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Friday, April 20, 2007 3:20 PM +1200 Lesley Walker 
<lesley.walker@opus.co.nz> wrote:

> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > It would be the remote server.  It doesn't try and contact itself.
>
> Okay, thanks.
>
> Next questions:
>
> When the replication is going through the refresh-present phase, am I
> correct in believing that the ADD entries are written only for entries
> that didn't previously exist in the consumer? So if there are, say, 20
> ADD entries in the log, that means 20 entries that didn't exist at all in
> the the consumer database?

There have been a number of syncrepl bugs fixed since 2.3.32.  I understand 
the reasons behind sticking with stable (although I strongly disagree with 
that entire thought process).  I guess this is something you'll have to 
live with until a new release is tagged stable.  It may still occur after 
that point, but then we'd know for certain it wasn't fixed by the bug fixes 
that I've found have definitely fixed other syncrepl related issues. 
Unless, of course, you are willing to upgrade & and can reproduce the 
results with 2.3.35 (which would be helpful to the project, of course).

--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Senior Systems Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html