I think we should stop calling these systems eventually consistent. They are actually never consistent. If the system is complex enough and there are always incoming changes, there is never a point in time in these "eventually consistent systems" that they are in consistent state. The problem of inconsistency is pushed to the users of the data.

So why isn't the section that needs consistency enclosed in a transaction, with all operations between BEGIN TRANSACTION and COMMIT TRANSACTION? That's the standard way to get strong consistency in SQL. It's fully supported in MySQL, at least for InnoDB. You have to talk to the master, not a read slave, when updating, but that's normal.

For the love of all that’s holy, please stop doing read-after-write. In nearly all cases, it isn’t needed. The only cases I can think of are if you need a DB-generated value (so, DATETIME or UUIDv1) from MySQL, or you did a multi-row INSERT in a concurrent environment.

For MySQL, you can get the first auto-incrementing integer created from your INSERT from the cursor. If you only inserted one row, congratulations, there’s your PK. If you inserted multiple rows, you could also get the number of rows inserted and add that to get the range, but there’s no guarantee that it wasn’t interleaved with other statements. Anything else you wrote, you should already have, because you wrote it.

For MariaDB, SQLite, and Postgres, you can just use the RETURNING clause and get back the entire row with your INSERT, or specific columns.

in the read after write scenario, why not use something like consistency tokens ? and redirect to primary if the secondary detects it has not caught up ?