Bug #3310 | Absence of "master-socket" parameter confuses | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 27 Mar 2004 2:23 | Modified: | 15 Jan 2009 11:49 |
Reporter: | David Galoyan | Email Updates: | |
Status: | Verified | Impact on me: | |
Category: | MySQL Server: Replication | Severity: | S4 (Feature request) |
Version: | 4.0.18, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0 | OS: | Linux (FreeBSD, Any) |
Assigned to: | Assigned Account | CPU Architecture: | Any |
[27 Mar 2004 2:23]
David Galoyan
[27 Mar 2004 5:56]
Guilhem Bichot
Hello, It's true replication was not designed with the objective of two MySQL servers on the same machine, as such configuration brings neither redundancy nor load balancing, the two key goals of replication. Yes, when you tell MySQL to connect to "localhost" it will always ignore the port you specified, because "localhost" means MySQL will use Unix sockets (that's mentioned in many places in the manual, just grep for "localhost"), whereas "port" is a TCP notion. Note that this is mentioned in the section of CHANGE MASTER TO: "MASTER_HOST and MASTER_PORT are the hostname or IP adress of the master host and its TCP port. Note that if MASTER_HOST is equal to localhost, then, like in other parts of MySQL, the port may be ignored (if Unix socket files can be used for example)." And as you said, the workaround is to use 127.0.0.1. We will consider adding --master-socket to replication, but this is put at the end of our TODO list, as replication on one single machine is not a widely spread setup. And... Thank you for using MySQL !! Guilhem
[15 Jan 2009 11:49]
Susanne Ebrecht
MASTER_SOCKET still is not an option in MySQL 5.1 nor 6.0.