Mostly because it's hard to write new code while gagging, convulsing,
and choking on our own blood spilling from our eyeballs after reading
the current code.... :)
OK, I might have exaggerated a *little* but not much. :)
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> You're right about the two bits. And the idea of a replication proxy has
> been floating around for years now. But so far I've not seen anyone build
> On 8/28/08, Simon J Mudd <sjmudd@stripped> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I've been using MySQL replication for some time but come from a
>> replication background using Sybase.
>> MySQL replication works very well is quick and simple to configure but
>> has some limitations, notably that you can't configure a MySQL server
>> as a slave of multiple masters.
>> One of the things which struck me is that AFAICS the MySQL replication
>> code has 2 major parts:
>> 1. a part which connects to the master and pulls the binlog information
>> to the local server, storing it in the relay-logs.
>> 2. a part which applies the relay logs talking to the database as if it
>> were a SQL client.
>> The description may not be exactly right but I think it's close.
>> Now if this MySQL code were put into an external program you could
>> configure 1 or more replication servers and solve many of the
>> limitations of the current code. You also simplify the MySQL server
>> as it's replication knowledge is reduced, and potentially can improve
>> replication behaviour (upgrades in the replication processes) without
>> affecting the MySQL server itself.
>> Would it be perhaps worthwhile doing something like this to allow for more
>> sophisticated replication configurations in larger mysql installations?
>> Just wonder what people think about this idea.
>> MySQL Replication Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/replication
>> To unsubscribe:
high performance mysql consulting