> -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:08 PM > To: SpamAssassin Users List > Subject: Re: Auto_increment vs SERIAL key types > > > At 06:14 10-10-2006, Michael Scheidell wrote: > >I am experimenting with mysql replication, and have done > some research > >on key collisions in the case of a 'load balancing' > situation (live sql > > [snip] > > > >My concern is over use of SERIAL keys in amavisd-new tables, vs > >AUTO_INCREMENT keys. (are SERIAL keys an alias for > AUTO_INCREMENT? Are > >SERIAL keys safe in replication situations?) > > It's an alias for BIGINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT UNIQUE.
Looks like with the bayes and awl collisions PROBABAL with live replication, its not such a great idea. (neither bayes now awl use serial. Other scheams may work, maybe with views in mysql 5, maybe create an underlying table with enough columns that replication won't break, and put in a view that SA wants to use.. Or hack SA? Maybe auto replicate the users preferences tables only? > > See auto_increment_increment and auto_increment_offset (MySQL 5.x). > > Regards, > -sm > >
