On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Jan Høydahl / Cominvent <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > Not sure about that. I have read that the replication handler actually issues > a commit() on itself once the index is downloaded.
That was true with the old replication scripts. The Java based replication just re-opens the IndexReader after all the files are downloaded so the index version on the slave remains in sync with the one on the master. > > But probably a better way for Markus' case is to hook the prune job on the > master, writing to another core (myIndexPruned). Then you replicate from that > core instead, and you also get the benefit of transferring a smaller index > across the network. I agree, that is a good idea. -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
