I have a table on a slave that has an a timestamp column that does not exist on the master; the intent of the people who set it up was that this timestamp column would reflect the time that the row was replicated to the slave. Instead, it appears to show the timestamp of when the column insertion or modification occurred on the master; I am assuming that this is due to the use of SET TIMESTAMP during processing of the binlog. However, a colleague has told me that SET TIMESTAMP is only used when the master table has columns that would be impacted by having the local time set to the master's time; since this timestamp column only appears on the slave, should we still expect to see this behavior when processing the binlog?
↧
