Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
/ 2004-06-08 17:42:37 +0400 \ Eugene Crosser: > Gents, > > I have a feeling (but not 100% certain) that 0.7 does not behave quite > right when a fresher note is forcibly made secondary. Consider this > scenario: > > - node A: primary&syncsource goes down > - node B: secondary&synctarget becomes primary&wfconnection > - Oops! You decide to continue using node A, take down B and boot A. > A becomes primary&wfconnection > - You boot B. > > At this moment B thinks that it sould have become syncsource, but > because it sees that A is already primary it would not interfere and > becomes synctarget. So far so good. *BUT* it says that "no sync > needed" and so, supposedly, the changes that where made on node A after > boot are not propagated to B, and so the data on B is in fact > inconsistent despite it says that it's consistent. > > Am I missing something? > > If not, I think it would be better to forcibly invalidate B, to prevent > the chance of using bad data... there was still a FIXME in the code, where I happen to work on right now... :) Lars Ellenberg