On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 21:32 +0200, Mats Kindahl wrote: > Hi! > > Long-term, I would like to see the table definitions stored in > (transactional) tables. That would mean that: > > - DDL operations can be replicated as tables changes, even in row format > - DDL operations can be transactional (provided the tables holding the > transactional data is transactional) > > Since we are aiming for a micro-server that can be a component of a > cloud, I think that we, long-term, have to move to a raw data format for > replication: the current replication system lacks in performance and it > would be beneficial to be able to treat all changes that need to > replicate in the same manner. This simplifies the logic, hence shrinks > the code base and eliminates the number of code paths, hence improves > performance of the replication (and of the system in general).
I was thinking along the lines of having a plugin system for providing table metadata. by default, could use this transactional local store, but it's also quite possible for an engine to plug in its own store. e.g. instead of having FRM files and Innodb/ndb/foo data dict, just use the engines data dict, at least for those tables. -- Stewart Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.flamingspork.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
