Krisitan, Did you figure out what would be the best solution here?
Thank you, Pavel On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Kristian Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
