Richard Yen <dba at richyen.com> writes:
> The question I have is--shouldn't the ev_origin for FAILOVER_SET be
> the nodeID of the backup node?  Seems like it wouldn't make sense that
> a failed node would create an event; the system should state that the
> backup node is the one creating the event, right?  I suppose this
> would be the remedy for the problem.

It makes a lot of sense for the origin of this event to be the backup
node...

- As you say, it's not terribly sensible for the origin to be a node
  that we want to treat as being fatally flawed, namely the former
  origin.

- I don't see any *other* node being preferable for this.

So I think you're right, that the function failedNode2() should indicate
that the new event is coming from the backup node, not the failed node.

I'll go bug Jan, and see if he concurs.
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sailifa.ac" "@" "enworbbc"))
Christopher Browne
"Bother,"  said Pooh,  "Eeyore, ready  two photon  torpedoes  and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"