The recent thread about merge tables led me to explore using them with replication.
I see bug reports for the 4.0.** series regarding replication and merge tables, and I've read the manual about merge table problems in the 5.0.** series ( we are using 5.0.22 ), but I'm curious if anyone has any experiences to share? We've had replication working well now for almost 4 years, and as many tables are approaching 2 million records, it would appear that using a merge table design might be one way to accomplish a type of incremental backup. By this I mean, since all our data are static ( only inserts and selects ), the older data could be moved to a separate DB and only the "active" DB with the newest tables/records and the merge tables could be mysqldumped each night. Does this sound about right? Anybody see any road hazards? If not, and this line of thinking is reasonable, should the DB with the older records also be replicated so that when a new old records table needs to be created, I don't have to repeat everything on the slave? It always makes me uneasy, fiddling with something that is working... Thanks, --David.
