On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:28:32PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
> You might have just hit the nail on the head.. Server1 is
> replicating everything to server2 but it is only saving changes to
> one particular database. Those changes are being manually gathered
> via mysqlbinlog and sent to serve
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:34:03PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
>
> I've tried this a bunch of times and different ways and can confirm
> that in the 3-server setup I described an alter table does NOT
> propogate. Can't see i
le?
Jeremy
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:23 PM
> To: Wendell Dingus
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Wende
ust adding a
field to a table or similar do not.
Thanks...
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:23 PM
To: Wendell Dingus
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug in replication 3.23.46-max
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Wendell Dingus wrote:
>
> I'm fairly certain this is a bug. It's on 3.23.46-max and the
> changelog for .47 doesn't mention it.
>
> I have 2 servers using replication. Server1 is used by client
> machines and all updates are to it. Server2 stays in perfec
I'm fairly certain this is a bug. It's on 3.23.46-max and the changelog for
.47 doesn't mention it.
I have 2 servers using replication. Server1 is used by client machines and
all updates are to it. Server2 stays in perfect sync with it and logs all
updates to it's own binary log. I then use mysql
