| From: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Deron <fecastle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL Blackhole Engine |
| Date: | 2012-11-07 00:18:56 |
| Message-ID: | 6D1F872F-3BFA-46A8-9735-517F3AD01E95@elevated-dev.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Deron wrote:
> Yes, I can't really find a good use case for it. I am meeting with some of them in the next few days to find out exactly what they are using it for. If there is a legitimate use case for this, I will forward that information.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. I will pass this information along as well if they really need the behavior.
From the docs, half a page down:
Inserts into a BLACKHOLE table do not store any data, but if the binary log is enabled, the SQL statements are logged (and replicated to slave servers). This can be useful as a repeater or filter mechanism. Suppose that your application requires slave-side filtering rules, but transferring all binary log data to the slave first results in too much traffic. In such a case, it is possible to set up on the master host a “dummy” slave process whose default storage engine is BLACKHOLE
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-11-07 01:41:28 | Re: unlooged tables |
| Previous Message | Deron | 2012-11-06 23:56:14 | Re: MySQL Blackhole Engine |