> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:47, Jan Lindström <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Yes, I have not yet made decision should the parameter be removed or left as > it is. It is to my knowledge stable but use cases are limited. >
From what I can see, its pretty clear that Percona Server now says: "Support for Fake Changes - Instead of slave prefetching using the fake changes, a 5.7 intra-schema parallel replication slave should be used.” source: https://www.percona.com/doc/percona-server/5.7/changed_in_57.html So is it not just wise to follow upstream XtraDB as opposed to keeping around what effectively is a dead feature / dead code? > R: Jan > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Federico Razzoli <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi all > > I see that 10.2 still has the innodb_fake_changes variable (OFF by default). > That feature was stable in Percona Server 5.5, is beta in 5.6, and was > removed in 5.7. > Is it still there just for compatibility with old configuration files, or is > there still a reason to use it? And in that case, is it stable or not? > > Regards, > Federico > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
