Sebastien Lardiere <sebastien at lardiere.net> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:55:42 +0100, Sebastien Lardiere <sebastien at lardiere.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Shouldn't node 2 and/or 3 be forwarder if you want to use one of them
>> as
>>> a
>>>> master ?
>>>
>>> You're right, i enable forward for 2 and 3, and then failover work.
>>>
>
> Ok, it work, and i understand why i've got some error : 
>
> - I have to set all direct receiver with forward = yes
>
> - When I do failover, i have to wait before send "drop node" for remover the old master.
>
> Perhaps somewhere in the documentation, it could be write that in case of failover, future master and direct receiver have to be set with forward = yes ? 

I'm adding this in more expressly in a couple of places (best
practices, slonik reference).
-- 
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html
Referring to undocumented  private communications allows one to  claim
virtually anything: "we discussed this idea in  our working group last
year, and concluded that it was totally brain-damaged".
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail