maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Tungsten Replicator and MariaDB
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Arjen Lentz<arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Sergey
> On 19/06/2009, at 8:12 PM, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Robert Hodges wrote:
>>> This brings up a question for the Maria dev team-what are your plans, if
>>> any, for replication support in MariaDB? In particular, are there any
>>> plans that would affect binlog formats?
>> So far we don't have any planned or in-development features that would
>> an effect on replication or binlog format. MariaDB's replication is
>> expected to be the same as MySQL replication.
You can add support for binlog checksums without breaking
compatibility because the format is extensible. Alas, extensibility is
broken because of bugs, so when those bugs are fixed I think you can
do this. However ...
> This is the real world, and pragmatism is expected.
> Things are broken in the land of MySQL replication, and thus we should fix
> The fixes are actually available, so why even bother coming up with excuses?
> Yep it changes/extends the binlog format. Tough! It's an upgrade; just like
> any other, a newer server should be able to be a slave to an older master.
> But this is important stuff! For instance, adding checksums to the binlog
> prevents a whole load of trouble. Not having it in there since the start
> (yes SashaP, I know you're guilty - plus all those who reviewed your code at
> the time) is a 10 year embarassment. Let's get it right, now, shall we?
Time is finite and the work to do on MySQL is not. It is not that hard
to do this feature, but who has the time to do it? And if nobody has
the time for it, then who is funding it?
Does MariaDB have a list of pending work ranked by priority?