🚀 go-pugleaf

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> With asynchronous replication your referential constraints can't stop a
> user on DB 1 from deleting a record referenced by a newly inserted
> record on DB 2.
> 
> 	In the real world, the easiest way to use replication is to establish
> rules for who can change what which prevent conflicts from happening in
> the first place and stick to them.  This might mean that "average Joe"
> users are allowed to insert lookup table entries but not delete them,
> and that they are only allowed to edit records they create.  Things
> they edit will be sent to the master DB, and the rest of the DB, which
> they are not allowed to change, is sent back from the master.

I see. I hadn't though very much about all that. Currently, in my 
application, I make an empty update of the record the user wants to 
delete or update before letting them do so, and if there's a lock 
conflict, I show an error message. This works very well. Do you think 
there would be any way of doing the same sort of thing on the replicated 
system (e.g. Holding the record locked as long as the change hasn't been 
sent to the server)?

How are conflicts handled with IBReplicator?

Thanks,
Jonathan Neve.