Kristian Nielsen <[email protected]> writes: > The main problem I see is what should be the default? I suppose we cannot > safely change the default for --replicate-same-server-id. On the other hand, > if users explicitly set --replicate-same-server-id=0, then it really does not > seem correct that some events with same server id are nevertheless replicated > depending on some complicated GTID semantics. So the curse of backwards > compatibility seems to hit here...
Hm, on second thoughts... CHANGE MASTER TO ... master_use_gtid is a new feature, so backwards compatibility does not really apply. And in GTID mode, we have a better way to prevent loops - the seq_no. Even in non-strict mode this can be relied on for our own server_id, at least. So perhaps it is better to just say that --replicate-same-server-id does not apply to GTID mode at all. Instead, in GTID mode, if we receive an event with our own server_id and smaller seq_no than what we already have, we skip it. Otherwise we apply it. That should be correct in the important use-case that you mentioned (restoring old backup), as well as in ring topologies. I need to think on this a bit more to be sure, but it seems like a possible solution. - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
