Jeremy D. Zawodny wrote:
> 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 assume that no queries would be sent to the slave until the
synchronization was complete.
Here are the steps I envision:
1. Edit master my.cnf to configure for replication (eventually maybe an
SQL command for configuration so it can be done live).
2. Restart the master.
3. Edit the slave configuration for replication.
4. Restart hte slave.
5. Run a script that sends LOAD TABLE FROM MASTER requests to the slave
for each table on the master.
6. Start accepting queries on the slave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
