Hello Jonathan,
thanks a lot for your comment and the hint with the two-phase commits.
Kind regards
Cornelius
Am Sonntag, den 27.09.2015, 15:42 -0700 schrieb Jonathan Vanasco:
> I don't like this idea.
>
> but...
>
> You should familiarize yourself with two-phase commits. sqlalchemy
>
I don't like this idea.
but...
You should familiarize yourself with two-phase commits. sqlalchemy
supports this on mysql and postgresql. basically everyone votes to commit
yay/nay in phase 1, then a commit is made (if unanimous yays) or rollback
executed in phase 2.
--
You received this
Hi Michael,
thanks for your response.
At least it shows me, that obviously this seems to be no common idea -
mostly known as a bad idea.
I do not want to sync anything on a database level, but on a logical level.
It is not important, that entries have the same index.
In theory it would not
On 9/27/15 5:17 PM, Cornelinux K wrote:
Hi Michael,
thanks for your response.
At least it shows me, that obviously this seems to be no common idea -
mostly known as a bad idea.
I do not want to sync anything on a database level, but on a logical
level. It is not important, that entries
Hello,
I have an application that uses an SQL database with also many write access.
Now I am thinking of high availability. One solution was to set up a mysql
master master replication.
But I was thinking, there might be some good aspects when doing the
synchronization on the application
On 9/26/15 6:35 AM, Cornelinux K wrote:
Hello,
I have an application that uses an SQL database with also many write
access.
Now I am thinking of high availability. One solution was to set up a
mysql master master replication.
that's a good solution.
But I was thinking, there might be
