> -Original Message-
> From: Claudio Nanni [mailto:claudio.na...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:44 AM
> To: Simon J Mudd
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: R: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and Databases
>
> You dont have changes comi
> -Original Message-
> From: sjm...@pobox.com [mailto:sjm...@pobox.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:02 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and Databases
>
> g...@primeexalia.com (Gary Smith) writes:
>
> ...
&
You dont have changes coming from db G since it is ignored from replication.
Why dont You move all stored procs in a separate db and replicate it as
well? You will use it as a 'library' for all of your dbs. Of course prepose
your schema name, always. You dont have to change replication type in This
g...@primeexalia.com (Gary Smith) writes:
...
> In database G we have 150+ stored procedures.
150k stored procedures? Sounds "rather large". Do you really need this?
> What's the best approach to fix this problem? Is it as simple as adding the
> appropriate USE statement inside of the stored
After getting table replication to work by including the USE database on the
creation scripts, I have run into a rather large problem. We have 5 databases
on the server which get replicated to another server. We call them databases,
A, B, C, D, and E. we have two other databases F and G which
