Yeah, hopefully releases will be semi-frequent now that the first one is out of the way; and releases should come with a better assurance that it has been vetted, as compared to any arbitrary commit.
-=Bill On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Isaac Councill <is...@hioscar.com> wrote: > Thanks for that! I was running 0.5.0-rc1 which doesn't have your fix. Now I > have a great excuse to upgrade to the official release, and better > understanding of how to answer my own similar questions in the future. > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Does your build contain commit 2b78aff? That was the fix for AURORA-596, > > which it sounds like what you are referring to. A build with that commit > > should course-correct your state. > > > > -=Bill > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Isaac Councill <is...@hioscar.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed this issue after being hit with the "Unique index or primary > > key > > > violation" error on one slave machine. Is there a recommended > workaround > > to > > > reset the db state safely? Currently aurora will not schedule jobs on > > that > > > slave. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Isaac > > > > > >
