![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/99fde0c1dfd216326aae0aff30d493f1.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jonas Oreland
i didn't read the fully reply, sorry for that, but still wanted to say that even if @@replicate_expect_conflicts might only be useful to a very small minority of users, i think it might be worth to implement...if it's not too hard/time-consuming...
It is trivial to implement (and I already did).
I though (of course !?!) suggest a different name: @@block-parallel-slave-execution=1, which i think should be advisory, even if name suggest otherwise.
A similar name but different wording is @@skip_parallel_replication. This is consistent with @@skip_replication, which is also advisory (a slave option controls whether it takes effect or not).
and that the implementation of this is the events is marked with such a bit...and that the slave applier will obey unless slave-parallel-mode=aggressive (and 'aggressive' could be yet another mode to slave-parallel-mode)
I like 'aggressive' to control this slave-side. Thanks, - Kristian.