Hi!
On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Roland Bouman wrote:
Bingo :)
Ok, all clear - thanks for explaining and my apologies for not
understanding (I guess I could've known this if I'd read more mail
from the list)
The fact that I am not super verbose in written word does not help.
I believe though that this is temporary in design. Until we have a
good
interface/disconnect between the parser and the rest of the system
I sort of
fear bypassing the parser.
Well, I am not an expert but they only way around this seems to be
some form of row-level replication? (Sorry for stating the obvious...)
Don't get me wrong - I am not saying "drizzle should have rbr", rather
I am saying that I don't see how fixing the parser-server entanglement
can solve this issue.
Well right now the system should be open enough to allow for someone
to create a module to do either, but our default is something more
akin to RBR.
We can convert our base messages back to statements and send them
through the parser until we have a good low level interface (which
also means you can print our logs like you can with STMT based
replication). We log the original statement as well as our
transformation (though logging the original statement will be an
option, and not on by default I suspect).
I don't have a name for what we are doing just yet :)
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
