Yes, i read that too in the replication request handler's source comments. But i would find it convenient if it would just use the same values as we see using the details command.
Any devs agree? Then i'd open a ticket for this one. On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:14:09 Xin Li wrote: > I read it somewhere (sorry for not remembering the source).. the > indexversion command gets the "replicable" index version #. Since it > is a slave machine, so the result is 0. > > Thanks, > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Markus Jelsma > > <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > > But why? I'd expect valid version numbers although the replication > > handler's source code seems to agree with you judging from the comments. > > > > On Monday 06 December 2010 17:49:16 Xin Li wrote: > >> I think this is expected behavior. You have to issue the "details" > >> command to get the real indexversion for slave machines. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Xin > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Markus Jelsma > >> > >> <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > The indexversion command in the replicationHandler on slave nodes > >> > returns 0 for indexversion and generation while the details command > >> > does return the correct information. I haven't found an existing > >> > ticket on this one although > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1573 has > >> > similarities. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Markus Jelsma - CTO - Openindex > >> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17 > >> > 050-8536620 / 06-50258350 > > > > -- > > Markus Jelsma - CTO - Openindex > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17 > > 050-8536620 / 06-50258350 -- Markus Jelsma - CTO - Openindex http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17 050-8536620 / 06-50258350
