On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:15:40PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> Since DDL is infrequent, is that bottleneck an acceptable trade-off?
I don't know. We'd have to do the analysis. But it could be a
problem. Look at it this way: if you have a replica that is, for
isntance, _always_ 30 minutes beh
On 06/01/07 19:17, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/07 18:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Since DDL is infrequent, is that bottleneck an acceptable trade-off?
Define infrequent? I have customers that do it, everyday in prod.
They do it willingly and refuse to change that habit.
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/07 18:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Since DDL is infrequent, is that bottleneck an acceptable trade-off?
Define infrequent? I have customers that do it, everyday in prod. They
do it willingly and refuse to change that habit.
Even 2 or 3 ALTER TABLE or CREATE INDEX
On 06/01/07 18:35, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote:
Could you not (I ask naively) detect the first DDL statement is
submitted in a transaction
Maybe.
on the master, then st
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote:
Could you not (I ask naively) detect the first DDL statement is
submitted in a transaction
Maybe.
on the master, then start a transaction on
each slave, then funne
