[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3552?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12583814#action_12583814
]
Kim Haase commented on DERBY-3552:
----------------------------------
Thanks, Oystein, that helps! I think I get it now. Sorry to be so dim. Clients
are using the master database and not the slave, so it generally doesn't matter
if the jar files are installed on the slave or not -- until a failover is
needed.
In that case, though, going back to Narayanan's comment of March 30 --
"To ensure that the jars are installed correctly on both systems, after a
failover, install the jars on the slave system (using either sqlj.remove_jar
followed by sqlj.install_jar, or sqlj.replace_jar)"
Why would you need to do a replace, or a remove/install, on the slave? If the
jars are not installed on the slave, I would think you would just do an
install.
> Handle jar files that are installed when replication is enabled
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3552
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3552
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Replication
> Affects Versions: 10.4.0.0, 10.5.0.0
> Reporter: V.Narayanan
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
