Well no because " real two-way replication" would happen at the dB level, or through some distributed transactional layer.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Baklund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Data sincronization > * Jerry > >>> I'm fairly sure it won't do master-master at the moment. > >>> > >>> I'd like to be wrong though. > >>> > >>> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Replication_FAQ.html > > * me > >> "master-master" replication is the same as "two-way" replication, and > >> it is mentioned in the above FAQ, halfway down the page: > >> > >> "Q: What issues should I be aware of when setting up two-way > >> replication?" > >> > >> I have never tried it, though. > >> > > * Jerry > > Yea, I've done what it says there but had to implement the locking myself, > > then just use two subsets of the dB and master slaved them to > > each other on the respective parts that weren't being used. > > ok... then you are not doing real two-way replication, you are only > replicating two ways, so to speak... if I understand you correctly, which I > probably don't... why do you tell us this? :) > > (Normally I wouldn't even ask, but this was a repost, and it was CC'd to me) > > -- > Roger > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
