MXS-3892: Document the change in behavior
It is worth documenting this change as the amount of queries done by MaxScale is likely to decrease by a significant amount. This change can also have a negative effect on the worst-case delay of the database mapping but this isn't really a practical problem.
This commit is contained in:
		@ -51,6 +51,21 @@ db1.t2   |MyServer1    |
 | 
				
			|||||||
db2.t1   |MyServer2    |
 | 
					db2.t1   |MyServer2    |
 | 
				
			||||||
```
 | 
					```
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					### Database Mapping
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					The schemarouter maps each of the servers to know where each database and table
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					is located. As each user has access to a different set of tables and databases,
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					the result is unique to the username and the set of servers that the service
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					uses. These results are cached by the schemarouter. The lifetime of the cached
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					result is controlled by the `refresh_interval` parameter.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					When a server needs to be mapped, the schemarouter will route a query to each of
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					the servers using the client's credentials. While this query is being executed,
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					all other sessions that would otherwise share the cached result will wait for
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					the update to complete. This waiting functionality was added in MaxScale 2.4.19,
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					older versions did not wait for existing updates to finish and would perform
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					parallel database mapping queries.
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
## Configuration
 | 
					## Configuration
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
					
 | 
				
			||||||
Here is an example configuration of the schemarouter:
 | 
					Here is an example configuration of the schemarouter:
 | 
				
			||||||
 | 
				
			|||||||
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user