>>>>> "JK" == Jan Kirchhoff <kirchhoff@stripped> writes:
JK> If the Slave gets out of sync (loses the connection to the server), connects
JK> again and tries to catch up, it processes those two queries *within one
JK> second* which would result in an duplicate primary key on the slave. The
JK> Slave would abort with an error and the replication would stop.
But then the slave is still not in sync since the data is different.
That doesn't seem to make sense for a replication scheme...
Just seems wrong to me, but what do I know ;-)
