heh, it was the thread where you said "use a different database" :) here's the fix message:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org/msg03257.html
I don't remember I'm afraid - I do remember a fix going in for pure JDBC Master/Slave for MySQL. I"m not sure if the pure JDBC Master/Slave has been tested yet for SQL Server - fancy trying it out? :)
Happy to! Just wanted to know if I was buying myself some trouble without the locking support. Congrats again and looking forward to using 4.1 j. On 12/6/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/6/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > first off, congratulations, Thanks! > second, i recall there being an issue with locking on SQL Server for pure > JDBC Master / Save and that you added a fix in to be able to turn off row > based locking when using SQL Server. I don't remember I'm afraid - I do remember a fix going in for pure JDBC Master/Slave for MySQL. I"m not sure if the pure JDBC Master/Slave has been tested yet for SQL Server - fancy trying it out? :) Basically if you startup 2 brokers, one should hang while the other is the master - then killing the master should cause a failover. -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
