On May 8, 7:53 am, Ants Aasma <ants.aa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 4:15 pm, "goo...@venix.com" <goo...@venix.com> wrote:
>
> > MySQL has a mechanism for a database to read the log from a master
> > database and replay the commands. This provides a loose coupling with
> > near real-time backup of the data. Should the backup server stop or
> > lose contact, the primary server is unaffected. When the backup
> > server regains contact, it restarts the log processing from the point
> > where it left off.
>
> MySQL log based replication is asynchronous.
True. That can be an advantage if you are simply looking for a backup
of your data.
It's only useful if
> losing some transactions in case of a crash isn't a problem.
Not sure what you mean by this. In the event of a crash, you
presumably are able to recover what was logged. Any unlogged
transactions are lost. This would seem to be independent of
replication.
This is probably losing sqlalchemy relevance. If you can recommend a
URL with strategies for dealing with DB failures, that could be
helpful to those who are still following this thread.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
