List:Replication« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Johan De Meersman Date:November 9 2010 6:28am
Subject:Re: Table Locking
View as plain text  
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Mats Kindahl <mats.kindahl@stripped>wrote:

> But then you can't use a (traditional) dual-master setup because that
> will block the changes on one master from getting to the table on the
> other master. Hence the reason for me asking.
>

Well, yes. It sounded to me like OP was looking for something in that ilk,
but we'll never know until he wakes up again :-p


> It is always possible to have the application send the changes to both
> the master, but I wonder if this is what the original poster intended.
>

Can't have MySQL-level replication then, though; and gets even more messed
up when you lose sync.


>  > And where that is concerned, it is worth noting that the latest
> > versions of 5.1 actually have two-phase commit, locally known as
> > (semi-) synchronous replication.
>
> Are we talking about the same thing? Do you mean 2PC with a slave as a
> cohort? Semi-synchronous replication is not the same as a 2PC in this
> sense since the transaction is committed to the master before sending
> the transaction to the slave.
>

Ahh, I failed to notice that. Thanks. That's a major difference, indeed.


> Also, this is distributed with 5.5, but not with 5.1.
>

Oops, my bad. You're right, of course.



-- 
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

Thread
Table LockingTears !8 Nov
  • Re: Table LockingMats Kindahl8 Nov
    • Re: Table LockingJohan De Meersman8 Nov
      • Re: Table LockingMats Kindahl8 Nov
        • Re: Table LockingJohan De Meersman9 Nov
    • Re: Table LockingTears !9 Nov
      • Re: Table LockingJustin Edwards9 Nov
        • Re: Table LockingRick James9 Nov
      • Re: Table LockingMats Kindahl9 Nov
      • Re: Table LockingJohan De Meersman10 Nov
        • Re: Table LockingMarcus Bointon10 Nov