maria-discuss team mailing list archive

[Colin Charles <byte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:47, Jan Lindström <jan.lindstrom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, I have not yet made decision should the parameter be removed or left as it is. It is to my knowledge stable but use cases are limited.
> 

From what I can see, its pretty clear that Percona Server now says:
"Support for Fake Changes - Instead of slave prefetching using the fake changes, a 5.7 intra-schema parallel replication slave should be used.”

source: https://www.percona.com/doc/percona-server/5.7/changed_in_57.html

So is it not just wise to follow upstream XtraDB as opposed to keeping around what effectively is a dead feature / dead code?


> R: Jan
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Federico Razzoli <federico_raz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I see that 10.2 still has the innodb_fake_changes variable (OFF by default). That feature was stable in Percona Server 5.5, is beta in 5.6, and was removed in 5.7.
> Is it still there just for compatibility with old configuration files, or is there still a reason to use it? And in that case, is it stable or not?
> 
> Regards,
> Federico
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> Post to     : maria-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> Post to     : maria-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

--
Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/
twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail