Just to throw some more open thoughts into the config discussion. Why should a config file be restricted to one server. If we do want to move toward a cloud like deployment, being for example to pull one config file from a central location to support multiple servers may be seen as an advantage, if it can handle small variants (I use the referenced thread example skip-slave-start, not an ideal one)
Is there merit in enabling config files to have the standard configuration and then also server-centric configuration settings by a given name. That said, can we replace server-id (which is old replication) with a better server-identifier Something obviously unique within your topology, but a description, not a number.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
