replication conflicts for 2 tables

Hi,
we are using merge replication between remote sites and
our central office. couple months ago we had a situation
where we had to insert some records and update other
records with these inserted records and then delete the
inserted records. Then we reinserted these records again
without replicating the deletes to our remote sites.
by doing this we had lots of conflicts.
I mannually deleted replicated and reinserted the records
again.
all other sites are fine but 2 of our sites, which were
disconnected during the delete replication did not get the
deleted records and they still shows conflicts every day
when they replicate. even though these records are not
being edited at all. For some reason they get marked for
replication and shows up in conflicts.
we don't care if those changes doesn't get replicated to
the remote sites becos they don't need those changes. how
do I stop them to show up in conflicts.
thanks
Kiran
did you resolve these conflicts using the conflict viewer? This is the
preferred way of solving this problem?
"Kiran" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:16bc201c41752$0defc130$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> we are using merge replication between remote sites and
> our central office. couple months ago we had a situation
> where we had to insert some records and update other
> records with these inserted records and then delete the
> inserted records. Then we reinserted these records again
> without replicating the deletes to our remote sites.
> by doing this we had lots of conflicts.
> I mannually deleted replicated and reinserted the records
> again.
> all other sites are fine but 2 of our sites, which were
> disconnected during the delete replication did not get the
> deleted records and they still shows conflicts every day
> when they replicate. even though these records are not
> being edited at all. For some reason they get marked for
> replication and shows up in conflicts.
> we don't care if those changes doesn't get replicated to
> the remote sites becos they don't need those changes. how
> do I stop them to show up in conflicts.
> thanks
> Kiran
sql

Replication - Conflicts

Hello,
I read in articles that there can occur two kinds of conflicts during
replication and that the SQL Server Reconciler solve such conflicts:
1) If more subscriber try to modify a row on the publisher database at the
same time.
2) If a certain row is modified at the subsriber database as well as the
coresponding row at the publisher database. So any one of those two have to
win and the other win will accept the changes of the other side.
So how does it look like when the Reconciler solve these two conflicts. How
does it work?
thx
rob
Hello,
Sorry that I posted the same question twice but it was accidentally. But
unfortunately this information is very important for me. Does no one knows
how the SQL Server Reconciler solves these conflicts (propagated by Hilary
Cotter)?
1) primary key collisions, where the publisher and subscriber enter a row
with the same value for the primary key between merge agent runs
2) a row is updated on the publisher or subscriber and deleted on the
subscriber or publisher. When the merge agent runs it attempts to update a
row which no longer exists.
3) you update the same row on both sides of a replication solution and do
not have column level tracking enabled for your publication.
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards
mat