On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Berry van Halderen > That shouldn't be possible since the first cluster node should be > holding the cluster lock during the entire "update-persist" operation. > Thus another cluster node shouldn't be able to make any concurrent > changes.
Let me get back on that, because I'm looking at a possible fault in my unit test. \Berry
