24.09.09, 12:04, "Kristian Nielsen" <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org>:
Alexi1952 writes:
Agree. BTW tables_ok() is just the only member I had already #ifdef'ed out from Rpl_filter for client context. Ah, I see. As for your suggestion to have a separate class, is it OK to do something like this?
class Binlog_filter { < ... all members from Rpl_filter except for tables_ok() ... (will also check carefully for other members) ...> };
class Rpl_filter: public Binlog_filter { <... tables_ok() ...> }; Yes, that sounds good.
BTW in this case declaring
Binlog_filter* binlog_filter;
will look like more natural than
Rpl_filter* binlog_filter;
(why indeed *replication filter* in mysqlbinlog which actully *doesn't replicate* :) Indeed :-)
Sorry. It's a bit hasty decision. For WL#40 we have to have a modification of tables_ok(TABLE_LIST*) to support table-rules. So it should be something like this: class A_filter /* TODO: choose more appropriate name*/ { < ... all members from Rpl_filter except for tables_ok() ...> }; class Binlog_filter: public A_filter { <... tables_ok() for client with appropriate argument instead of TABLE_LIST ..> }; class Rpl_filter: public A_filter { <... tables_ok() for replication...> }; Note. This is also preliminary because curently I have no final/clear decision how to do WL40 for SBR. (I'm itching to detach the parser but this is too huge task within these binlog WL's)
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Новая Яндекс.Почта http://mail.yandex.ru/promo/new/sign