Chris Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I work for a small (but very fast-growing) company, and we're about to
> start deploying our new website. Because it has a "live inventory"
> setup, and because our internal tools are so integrated with the
> ecommerce side of things, I figure that replication is the best tool for
> us - we'd have a fast database at our colo, and one in the office, and
> data would be mirrored as needed.
>
> I can work around issues that might arise with auto-increment fields
> when the servers can't talk, but I'm wondering if there is a way to do
> table-based replication instead of db-based. I'd prefer it if the
> master machine only paid attention to changes on certain tables from the
> slave (my code already handles this, but I'm still looking for that
> extra bit of security - plus as I understand it, if things are read-only
> they will be a bit faster).
Take a look at replication options like replicate-do-table etc.
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Replication_Options.html
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/
__ ___ ___ ____ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Victoria Reznichenko
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.net
<___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
