On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Logic of deciding the highest priority one seems to be in-correct.
>> Assume, s_s_num = 3, s_s_names = 3,4,2,1
>> standby nodes are in order as: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
>>
>> As per the logic in patch, node 4 with priority 2 will not be added in the list whereas 1,2,3 will be added.
>>
>> The problem is because priority updated for next tracking is not the highest priority as of that iteration, it is just priority of last node added to the list. So it may happen that a node with higher priority is still there in list but we are comparing with some other smaller priority.
>
>
> Fixed. Nice catch!
Actually by re-reading the code I wrote yesterday I found that the fix
in v6 for that is not correct. That's really fixed with v7 attached.
Regards,
--
Michael