On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:38:53PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) wrote:
> > I look forward to your comments.
>
> It is not evident from the paper what approach is taken to dealing
> with the duplicate key conflicts.
>
> The example:
>
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'temp' where col = 'A';
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'A' where col = 'B';
> UPDATE table SET col1 = 'B' where col = 'temp';
It's not a problem, because as the proposal states, the actual SQL is
to be sent in order to the slave. That is, only consistent sets are
sent: you can't have a condition on the slave that never could have
obtained on the master. This means greater overhead for cases where
the same row is altered repeatedly, but it's safe.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
