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

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