On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Nichter <dan...@percona.com> wrote: > It would be relatively easy in the docs to make this split: say "slave is > _the_ native system of replication (because it's reliable etc. etc.)" but > also, "Drizzle also has a system called replicator-applier which allows > plugins to access the same committed transactions and do whatever they want > with them". That's probably what the original docs wanted but failed to > communicate. > > Does that ^ sound better? What do other developers think? Brian? Monty? > Mark? Stewart? Henrik? Olaf? Vijay? Jay? etc. >
+1 I don't know squat about this part of Drizzle, but I was really confused by your first explanation. But now I'm back on track again. It seems to me the replicator api really is just a general purposes notifier or publishing api. There could be use cases where I have no desire to enable the InnoDB based transaction log (or related slave plugin), but would still like to receive committed transactions as events. (Such as for pushing into ETL tool, Hadoop, Gearman, etc...) I might not care about 100% integrity, if I do, I probably should use the transaction log. But listening in on your above discussion, it seems none of that has anything to do with Drizzle-to-Drizzle replication. Might be worth renaming "replicator" to "notification api" or similar to avoid confusion in the future. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ 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
