kuldeep porwal <2591kuld...@gmail.com> writes: > If in future if we find some DDL inconsistency or any other issue that > *may* require changing transaction.proto then we should modify it and keep > that under different version. As this will obviously help in entirely > independent working of our module and we don't affect Drizzle slave or > applier at the same time.
We should not need to modify transaction.proto at all as it can already be used to express all DDL and DML changes possible to apply to Drizzle. >> I wouldn't worry too much about it at this stage, we could attempt the SQL > and just error out if it doesn't apply. > Yeah great! I introduced Checksum and DDL heuristics just as a part of > proposal. We have to create basic prototype first then we will keep on > improving it. There shouldn't be any place to add in checksum, we can support/notsupport the MySQL binlog checksum for reading. -- Stewart Smith
pgpXxR7sqlbQx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : drizzle-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
