Hi All,
Sorry if I posted on the wrong list.
I've had this issue with my previous server already, seems like skip-locking
configuration does not seem to work on myisam tables.
Also what is the difference between myisam and innodb tables. The reason I
wanted to know is that I think
thank you Baron, yes, it's check-alive code from our application gateways which
was confirmed by our developers.
But, how can it impact slave sql thread executing transaction extracted from
binary log ?
thanks!
Liu Xian
*^_^*
--- 10年9月11日，周六, Baron Schwartz ba...@xaprb.com 写道：
发件人: Baron
Received.
On Sunday, September 12, 2010 09:32:12 am monloi perez wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if I posted on the wrong list.
I've had this issue with my previous server already, seems like
skip-locking configuration does not seem to work on myisam tables.
Also what is the difference between
Hi,
I'm designing a master-to-master replication architecture.
I wonder what the best way is to make sure both databases generate unique
row ID's, so there won't be ID conflicts when replicating both directions.
I read on forums about pro's and con's using UUID's, also about setting the
On 12 Sep 2010, at 19:47, Kiss Dániel wrote:
- SID adds only 2 bytes in this case to the size of the primary key item.
It can be even 1 byte if I'm sure I'll never exceed maximum 255 servers. But
anyhow, it is still way smaller than the 16 byte of a UUID field, even if
using BIGINT's.
Server offset + increment works really well, is simple, and well
documented and reliable - not sure why you would want to re-invent
something that works so well :).
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
You may be right. I'm not arguing that offset + increment is working.
I'm just wondering if that's the optimal solution when you do not know how
many servers you will have in your array in the future. In my view, the
offset + increment thingy is good if you know in advance that you'll have a
