List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Claudio Nanni Date:July 11 2009 9:43am
Subject:R: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and Databases
View as plain text  
You dont have changes coming from db G since it is ignored from replication.
Why dont You move all stored procs in a separate db and replicate it as
well? You will use it as a 'library' for all of your dbs. Of course prepose
your schema name, always. You dont have to change replication type in This
case. Cheers, Claudio

Il giorno 11 lug, 2009 10:03 m., "Simon J Mudd" <sjmudd@stripped> ha

Gary@stripped (Gary Smith) writes:


> In database G we have 150+ stored procedures.
150k stored procedures? Sounds "rather large". Do you really need this?

> What's the best approach to fix this problem? Is it as simple as adding
the appropriate USE stat...
I'd suggest row based replication. In your previous post you mentioned
you were using 5.1.35 so you can do that.  One of the reasons for
using RBR is precisely to make life clearer when replicating from one
server to another. The rows changed on the master will be changed on
the slave.  You don't need to depend on the effect of the stored
procedure on master and slave being the same.


-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: To unsubscribe: h...

R: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and DatabasesClaudio Nanni11 Jul
  • RE: Re: Replication, Stored Proceedures and DatabasesGary Smith11 Jul