We even thought of that but that would mean for each slave, have one
table. That could go pretty big.
I think I am going to go talk to my management on this subject again :)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Morgan
> How about actually storing the data in different tables and then provide a
> consolidated view on the master by creating a view? You could then control which slave
> applied the changes from which of these tables.
> Regards, Andrew.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:vegivamp@stripped]
>> Sent: 14 September 2010 08:06
>> To: Ritesh Nadhani
>> Cc: replication@stripped
>> Subject: Re: Filtered data replication
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Ritesh Nadhani <riteshn@stripped>
>> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Johan De Meersman
>> > wrote:
>> > > Well, traditionally, partitioning :-)
>> > >
>> > > Bandwidth, storage, ... ?
>> > >
>> > Well, without getting into much details, it mostly about security.
>> Unless you're worried about the actual DBAs, I see no issue in granting
>> user select only on a single partition instead of the global table.
>> forget, a "partitioned table'" is just a layer, and the partitions are
>> actual, real tables that may be queried directly.
>> If you *are* worried about your DBAs, you have bigger problems than
>> partitioning :-)
>> Bier met grenadyn
>> Is als mosterd by den wyn
>> Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
>> Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel