Comment 3 for bug 479743
Revision history for this message
| fmpwizard (diego-fmpwizard) wrote Re: [Bug 479743] Re: update with sub select produces invalid results from transaction_reader/transaction_log | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Joe Daly <email address hidden> wrote:
> ah yes, I knew that. Ill update the test case with a primary key and
> push it up. It does work with the primary key. Theres really not a great
> place to put a error message if you allow tables without primary keys.
> If someone has this error they would have to alter the table and restart
> replication basically to get the master and slave in sync again? A long
> term fix may be to verify the schema is suitable for replication.
>
I think there is another thread on the mailing list addressing this
but, could Drizzle handle the missing primary key in a similar way
innodb does?
What I mean is, if you have an innodb table without a primary key,
innodb creates one for you internally (which I believe the user has no
access to).
IMHO, as an end user, this is cleaner than having to add a primary key
to all my tables just because Drizzle replication needs it :)
Thanks
-Diego
--
Diego Medina
Web Developer
http://