Would you not lock tables on the slave? The idea of catching it up implies this is way it is done. Catching up means once replication can proceed once the tables are unlocked (on the slave).
At least that is the way I read it... Tim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Burton Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:20 PM To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: mySQL Backups On 4/11/06, Dana Diederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We use a dedicated replicated instance for backups. > > Every night, we lock all of the tables, and dump all of them to > compressed files, and unlock them afterwards. It takes a while to catch > up, but that doesn't hurt anything. I too use this solution, but it occurs to me that it would be useful if it were possible to replicate one database into another (differently named) database on the same mysql instance for the very purpose of taking snapshots without locking tables in the live system. I realise that it is possible to do this by running two local mysql instances, but a local replicator could be an interesting interim backup solution. Might something like this be on the agenda, or would the planned holistic backup solution eclipse such a feature. Thanks, Tez -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
