Does anyone know if this issue with BROKER_NAME in ACTIVEMQ_LOCK table has ever been resolved?
It seems that for some reason it was decided that broker cluster (i.e. group of 1 master and N slaves) must have a dedicated database instance?! Using BROKER_NAME (which, actually, should be a broker cluster name would allow to lock slaves on per record bases, i.e. thet same db table could be shared by multiple cluster of brokers configered as master/slave. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ACTIVEMQ-LOCK-BROKER-NAME-Is-Always-NULL-tp3093361p4331440.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
