or you can just take a full dump from one box and import it on the other any time you switch. If it's not a big db it should probably be quicker than any alternative approach.
On 9 August 2013 16:10, Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto.d.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > not sure having to write stuff any time you do even the smallest thing on > your table is more reasonable of taking the pain to write (or ask friends > to help you writing) a couple of bash scripts that will do the job forever. > But then again, this is true if and only if she is the one and only user > who can create data. > > > On 9 August 2013 16:06, bricklen <brick...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto.d.s...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> --all you need to do is switch master and slave so that "master" is the >>> one box you are currently on >>> >> >> That probably isn't a reasonable solution, considering the OP mentioned >> that she was not a professional DBA. Setting up a hot/warm standby, failing >> over, resetting the slave from the new master, lather, rinse, repeat is >> certainly scriptable but doesn't seem like the best option here. >> >> I don't know of any commercial solutions, but writing some code might be >> required. Synchronizing data isn't that difficult, but synchronizing >> changes to database table structure will be a bit tricky, >> > > > > -- > ============================== > If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a > darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music. > -- ============================== If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
