Re: "publisher always wins conflict" resolver? (for merge replication under SQL 2000)

there are basically 3 types of conflicts -pk violations (insert conflicts where you have the same pk value on both sides), update conficts - same row updated onboth sides or same column updated on both sides when you are using column level tracking, update/delete conflicts - row is updated on one side, deleted on the other.

By default (with compensate for errors set to false (default for SQL 2000, not the default for SQL 2005)), the publishers insert/update/and delete conflicts will win.

This is the default for the client (local) subscription type - the first to the publisher will win against any other conflicts generated by other subscribers. Publisher DML which conflicts with subscribers will win.

For the server version (global ) where you can assign priorities, it depends on the priority which one will stick, but still publisher DML causing conflicts with other subscribers the publisher DML will win.

Now if data in inserted on the publisher and then deleted on the subscriber, the delete will move to the publisher and delete that row there. This is not a conflict and by design.

Are these deletes showing up in the conflict viewer?

HTH


"tbh" <femdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eZ1VY5csIHA.4848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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



.

Relevant Pages
Loading