Hi Jeremy
On 22/08/2008, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Arjen Lentz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/08/2008, at 1:59 AM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
Does it make sense to explicitly record the database(s) and/or
table(s) involved in a statement. I don't know how common it is to
filter replication based on one or both of those, but I tend to
encounter it WAY more than I'd expect to...
It'd be great if a slave could give a master a ruleset for this, so
it doesn't have to drag across everything before filtering.
So, I like the idea of explicitly recording the dbs/tables involved
in a query (and not just the current default db), but more for the
benefit of the master being able to filter before sending it to an
individual slave, rather than having all the extra info go across
the wire too.
That'd be useful. Or per-db binlogs, which is a different can of
worms...
Ye I don't think that flies.
Multi-table updates and deletes already make filtering difficult, but
storing per db would complicate that even further.
Isn't this one of the problems Falcon is suffering from with respect
to replication, making it necessary to go only row-based repl?
Cheers,
Arjen.
--
Arjen Lentz, Founder @ Open Query
Training and Expertise for MySQL in Australia and New Zealand
http://openquery.com.au/training/ (ph. +61-7-3103 0809)
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
