Also, it won't help you much as it's only prototype code but it looks like this feature
might have been on interest...
Any feedback on whether this would have fit the bill would be appreciated (especially if
there are tweaks that you'd suggest).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Morgan
> Sent: 14 September 2010 08:10
> To: Ritesh Nadhani
> Cc: replication@stripped
> Subject: RE: Filtered data replication
> 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
> 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>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Johan De Meersman
> > <vegivamp@stripped>
> > > 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
> > a
> > user select only on a single partition instead of the global table.
> > Don't
> > forget, a "partitioned table'" is just a layer, and the partitions
> > 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