PROTECTED]
]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]Subject: Re: AUTO_INCREMENT with Replication
]
]
]Hi,
]
]That kind of bothers me. But I can see how it might be better in some way
]than using a time function. My idea was to use the perl
]Time::HiRes to make
]a unique key adjusted by timezone. As long as the
to be determined by the application,
> >frequency of
> >communication between master & slave, and volume of records going in.
> >
> >I have *not* implemented such a system, but this could work, depending on
> >your app.
> >
> >sean
> >
> >
&g
munication between master & slave, and volume of records going in.
>
>I have *not* implemented such a system, but this could work, depending on
>your app.
>
>sean
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Eric Frazier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <
Well. Good to know. So I guess the only alternative would be to generate
keys by date/time?
I was hoping to avoid that. I am still worried about the timestamp type not
having good enough resolution. Seconds are pretty broad.
Thanks,
Eric
>You're asking for trouble. :-)
>
>AUTO_INCREMENTS a
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: AUTO_INCREMENT with Replication
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 10:54:23AM -0700, Eric Frazier wrote:
> > From the manual 4.10.4
> > "Replication will be done correctly with AUTO_
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 10:54:23AM -0700, Eric Frazier wrote:
> From the manual 4.10.4
> "Replication will be done correctly with AUTO_INCREMENT, LAST_INSERT_ID(),
> and TIMESTAMP values."
>
> I am somewhat fearful and curious about how this works. Say we have
> a master web database that gets
From the manual 4.10.4
"Replication will be done correctly with AUTO_INCREMENT, LAST_INSERT_ID(),
and TIMESTAMP values."
I am somewhat fearful and curious about how this works. Say we have a
master web database that gets replicated back to the office slave over the
Internet. A person on the w
