AdamR wrote: > > On the master, the local_revisions table contains one row for itself, > which obviously always contains the latest revision ID. The table does not > contain any data for the other cluster nodes (the MySQL replication only > works in one direction), which it has no knowledge about. As far as I can > tell this table is only used to determine which items from the journal > need to be processed on each node, therfore so long as each node's copy of > the local_revisions table has itself in, it should be fine? >
Hmm, I just discovered the RevisionTableJanitor. This would be problematic as the cluster journal would constantly get cleaned-up before the slave nodes have a chance to update themselves. However, I think everything will be fine if I keep this turned off and run periodic manual clean-ups instead. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-with-database-replication-tp25132305p25132565.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
