On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:30:38PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 10/6/2005 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:39:50PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >>
> >>What else?
> >
> >Do we want to aim at fixing the FAILOVER breakage?  We have two
> >complete failures of this reported, and it sure seems like a mighty
> >serious bug (not to mention a long-standing one).
> 
> I have checked out failover with REL_1_1_STABLE as of today and
> 8.0.4. I see failover working here, but the behaviour of slon is
> sub-par. It does not strike me as a good idea to fix that in 1.1.x,
> since the whole process stucture possibly needs an overhaul ... what
> Frank did was apparently not what was needed.
> 
> I propose to get 1.1.2 out as it is now and I will then see that I
> can make failover in HEAD rock solid by finally moving the entire
> watchdog functionality into slon itself.

Groovy.  Can we see about some kind of prominent notice in the docs as
to where the gotchas on failover are and (ideally) some kind of
explanation and/or workaround?

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter david at fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!