> -----Original Message----- > From: sjm...@pobox.com [mailto:sjm...@pobox.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:02 AM > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and Databases > > g...@primeexalia.com (Gary Smith) writes: > > ... > > > In database G we have 150+ stored procedures. > > 150k stored procedures? Sounds "rather large". Do you really need this?
150, not 150,000. > > What's the best approach to fix this problem? Is it as simple as > adding the appropriate USE statement inside of the stored procedure > right before the insert/update/delete/whatever? > > I'd suggest row based replication. In your previous post you mentioned > you were using 5.1.35 so you can do that. One of the reasons for > using RBR is precisely to make life clearer when replicating from one > server to another. The rows changed on the master will be changed on > the slave. You don't need to depend on the effect of the stored > procedure on master and slave being the same. We are using row based replication. In the wee hours of the night last night we changed the replication rules to replicate everything but information_schema and mysql. No changes that are initiated from the stored procedures in database G that update tables in database A are seen. We had to do an entire DB reload last night after we discovered this. > Simon > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=g...@primeexalia.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
