List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Michael Widenius Date:July 29 1999 7:53pm
Subject:Re: Automated database replication,
View as plain text  
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Hess <scott@stripped> writes:

Scott> <elble@stripped> wrote:
>> > Yes, there is a huge problem in doing it in BOTH directions. The
>> > infinite loop. You will simply have to recognize that row inserted
>> > (updated) action is due to replication. That means a simple field in
>> > each row could flag it.
>> 
>> solution: set SQL_LOG_UPDATE=0 before commiting updates to the other side.

Scott> Keeping in mind that you should also not allow non-update queries to be
Scott> hitting the database you're updating while you have SQL_LOG_UPDATE turned
Scott> down!  Otherwise, you'll lose all those "real" updates.

Scott> [Actually, the solution is somewhat simple.  Write lock _all_ tables in the
Scott> update log, turn down SQL_LOG_UPDATE, apply the update log, then unlock
Scott> tables.]

Scott> Later,
Scott> scott

Hi!

SQL_LOG_UPDATE is per thread.  This means that if you torn of logging
for yourself, you will not affect the logging from other threads.

Regards,
Monty
Thread
Automated database replication,Joe Kislo13 Jul
  • Automated database replication,sinisa14 Jul
    • Re: Automated database replication,elble14 Jul
      • Re: Automated database replication,Scott Hess14 Jul
        • Re: Automated database replication,elble14 Jul
          • Re: Automated database replication,Scott Hess14 Jul
        • Re: Automated database replication,Michael Widenius29 Jul