Jigal van Hemert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/27/2005 03:35:59 AM:
> Mysql Lists wrote: > > I'm hoping they get replication setup by "diffs", only sending the diffs > > that are tracked from the master.. replicated to the slave.. That would > > be sweet :) > > > > > > On 9/27/05, *Jigal van Hemert* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > wrote: > > > > Balazs Rauznitz wrote: > > > I have replication set up. Is it OK to alter one of the slaves > > and add > > > several indexes ? It did seem to work, but I'd like to be sure. > > > > Replication does nothing more or less than copying the queries that > > alter the tables (inserts, updates, alter table, delete, etc.) to the > > slave in the same order as they were executed on the master (it may be > > technically a different story, but this illustrates the concept). > > Please reply to the list and not to me personally, so others can join > the thread :-) > > Using "diffs" (I assume that you mean a set of records that were changed > since the previous moment of synchronisation) is not the way MySQL > replication works. The master 'simply' keeps a log of the modifying > queries it performed and the slave reads that log from time to time. > It's the simplest and safest way to replicate IMHO... > > Regards, Jigal. > Jigal is right, that's now how replication is currently works in MySQL. The current process is called "Statement Based Replication" (SBR). The developers are currently working the kinks out of "Row Based Replication" (RBR) which I believe is what Balazs was asking for. Look for it as a feature in 5.0 (or 5.1 I am not sure which tree I was lurking when I read the code changes). Shawn Green Database Administrator Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine
