On 7/6/2005 5:47 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> The following is aa warning to anyone attempting to add a node to slony
> cluster
> 
> This happened on Slony 1.0.5
> 
> I have a cluster replicating several sets, and yesterday I tried to add
> yet another node to it and to subscribe the new node to get set5 from
> "node3" which was subscribing to the master node "node1".
> 
> I noticed that node3 was subscribing with forward=no, so I made a small
> slonik script to set subscription to forward=yes. unfortunately I made a
> small typo (or maybe a thinko) and also wrote the set id (5) as
> provider, so that instead of subscribing to node1, node3 was now
> subscribing to node5, which did not even have any of the tables in set5.

A quick glimpse over the code shows that there is in fact no such test 
that would guard against that. Please add it as a bug report with the 
hint that subscribeSet_int() must check that the provider itself is a 
forwarding subscriber.


Jan

> 
> Later, when I noticed muy mistake, I was also change tha provider back
> to node1, but I'm now missing the changes that had happened in between.
> 
> Is there any reason, why slony allows me to silently change also the
> provider of a set subscription to a node that is neither master nor a
> subscriber of that set ?
> 
> Or is this just a bug ? 
> 
> Maybe it is even fixed in slony 1.1 ?
> 
> 


-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #