Just FYI, I've started this (finally), clarifying the replication docs as discussed.
On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ 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
