"publisher always wins conflict" resolver? (for merge replication under SQL 2000)
- From: "tbh" <femdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 14:15:15 +0200
hi,
i've searched but haven't found a definite answer on this. is there a
conflict resolver where the publisher always wins? that would seem sensible
in our situation. i've found 2 conflict resolvers listed that might be
relevant, but the names are confusing:
- Microsoft SQL Server Subscriber Always Wins Conflict Resolver
- Microsoft SQL Server Download Only Conflict Resolver
in a thread in this group from about two years ago an SQL MVP opined that
"publisher wins" is the default. alas the thread ends with a request by the
questioner for him to elaborate on his answer. (that appears to be what I
need too.)
but in msdn docs i've read the default is a "priority" based resolver, which
jibes more with our current problem (an apparent update/delete conflict --
actually we are inserting on the publisher and a "delete" supposedly happens
on the subscriber which wins.
we don't understand this delete: we don't know where it is coming from. we
suspect referential integrity conflicts, but haven't been able to find any
evidence of them.
cheers,
Tim Hanson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: mirrror experience
- Next by Date: Re: "publisher always wins conflict" resolver? (for merge replication under SQL 2000)
- Previous by thread: mirrror experience
- Next by thread: Re: "publisher always wins conflict" resolver? (for merge replication under SQL 2000)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
