Francis Swasey wrote:
On 3/10/09 12:20 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:49 AM -0400 Francis Swasey
>> To be specific, there are changes that make it into the master server,
>> and the auditlog overlay logs them, but the accesslog overlay does NOT
>> put them in the accesslog database, so they do not get sent to the
>> replica servers.
>> It seems to be some kind of race condition. I haven't figured out a way
>> to reproduce the failure yet.
> Oh, you have auditlog in place too? I don't believe you mentioned that
> before. I bet it is related to them both being enabled.
It is the first time I've mentioned it in this thread, but I've
mentioned it in previous threads.
So -- why would having auditlog and accesslog (and syncprov) all used
with a database cause accesslog to miss some of the changes?
Why not just have another process suck out the contents of accesslog you're interested
auditing and write it to a log file. Having both overlays is kinda redundant.
Russell A. Jackson <raj(a)csub.edu>
California State University, Bakersfield
Life is like a tin of sardines.
We're, all of us, looking for the key.
-- Beyond the Fringe