On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:09:35AM -0800, Mike Wexler wrote:
>
> >
> > Probably true. I just haven't thought too hard about it. I might
> > be possible today for the *first* slave, but after that it seems
> > like it can't be done.
>
> I don't see why not. I'm assuming the master would transmit all
> updates and the slave would ignore the ones for tables that were not
> yet being monitored. I don't see why it matters whether its the
> first or last slave.
If a slave thread tries to run a query for a table which does not
exist, will it ignore the error and go on, or will it die and halt
replication? If memory serves, it will halt replication [on the slave]
until the problem is fixed.
I'm pretty sure that's the case, but I'd have to try and break it to
see what happens to be sure. Or wait for someone who knows for sure to
tell us. :-)
> > True statement. Plus I have flexible work hours. It's a
> > double-edged sword, really...
>
> Having both kids and flexible work hours means you never sleep :-)
> Its like a double edged sword with a mind of its own.
Reminds me of a dream I had once...
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance
Desk: (408) 328-7878 Fax: (408) 530-5454
Cell: (408) 439-9951
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
