On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> A) You apply those changes in the order you read them out of the master
> on the slave. This requires that you do it all in one big transaction on
> B) You read all the changes across all tables, but regroup them into
> their correct order and original transaction boundaries for playback on
> B2) You read all the changes across all tables simultaneously via
> cursors. Worst case you need as many cursors as you have tables and it's
What I am confused about is why one needs to apply now-superseded
transactions on the slave at all. Don't you just want a
(serializable, mind) snapshot of the master to be applied to the
slave?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
