September 2009 - developers - lists.mariadb.org

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 09 Sep '09

09 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Wed, 09 Sep 2009, 11:50)=-=- High Level Description modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11584 2009-09-09 11:50:12.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11584 2009-09-09 11:50:12.000000000 +0300 @@ -5,7 +5,11 @@ This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. -2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it -will change the slave's server_id when applied. +2. When one executes a BINLOG statement (containing "format description binlog +statement" or other events), this will cause subsequent statements run in +the same session to be binlogged with the server id of the last event +executed, not with the real server id. This can cause problems like infinite +recursive application in a circular replication topology. This WL is to fix these issues. + -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 15:07)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,34 @@ +I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to +apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct +call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this +is correct: + +1. The existing code does + + if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) + +Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. + +2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for +BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to +make sure. + +Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use +--base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that +option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to +omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements +for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the +format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG +statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events +contained in these statements. + +Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the +source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), +then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement +be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an +error). + +The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need +to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be +omitted. -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one executes a BINLOG statement (containing "format description binlog statement" or other events), this will cause subsequent statements run in the same session to be binlogged with the server id of the last event executed, not with the real server id. This can cause problems like infinite recursive application in a circular replication topology. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this is correct: 1. The existing code does if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. 2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to make sure. Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use --base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events contained in these statements. Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an error). The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be omitted. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 09 Sep '09

09 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Wed, 09 Sep 2009, 11:50)=-=- High Level Description modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11584 2009-09-09 11:50:12.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11584 2009-09-09 11:50:12.000000000 +0300 @@ -5,7 +5,11 @@ This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. -2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it -will change the slave's server_id when applied. +2. When one executes a BINLOG statement (containing "format description binlog +statement" or other events), this will cause subsequent statements run in +the same session to be binlogged with the server id of the last event +executed, not with the real server id. This can cause problems like infinite +recursive application in a circular replication topology. This WL is to fix these issues. + -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 15:07)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,34 @@ +I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to +apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct +call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this +is correct: + +1. The existing code does + + if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) + +Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. + +2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for +BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to +make sure. + +Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use +--base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that +option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to +omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements +for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the +format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG +statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events +contained in these statements. + +Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the +source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), +then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement +be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an +error). + +The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need +to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be +omitted. -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one executes a BINLOG statement (containing "format description binlog statement" or other events), this will cause subsequent statements run in the same session to be binlogged with the server id of the last event executed, not with the real server id. This can cause problems like infinite recursive application in a circular replication topology. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this is correct: 1. The existing code does if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. 2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to make sure. Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use --base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events contained in these statements. Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an error). The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be omitted. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] Rev 2721: Merge xtradb-7 -> MariaDB in file:///home/psergey/bzr-new/mysql-5.1-maria-contd2/
by Sergey Petrunya 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Hi Peter, On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 06:33:00PM +0200, Peter Laursen wrote: > @Sergey > . > does this mean that we can now check out code, compile and XtraDB will be > functional? > (cc: to Khusboo as she is assigned as build-engineer for the Windows MariaDB > planned to be provided by Webyog) No, not yet: I haven't pushed this yet, because the result of the merge has certain issues. There will be more commits and then push. Besides the merge, we have also two known windows problems, as mentioned here: http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB_5.1_TODO#Bugfixes We're working on these also. Do you want me to notify you when lp:maria is ready for windows packaging? BR Sergey -- Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog

2 2

[Maria-developers] Rev 2722: Post-merge fix in file:///home/psergey/bzr-new/mysql-5.1-maria-contd2/
by Sergey Petrunya 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

At file:///home/psergey/bzr-new/mysql-5.1-maria-contd2/ ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 2722 revision-id: psergey(a)askmonty.org-20090908162138-wtd6r54dkcp4hg5a parent: psergey(a)askmonty.org-20090908160458-fglojzacu8inqb9q committer: Sergey Petrunya <psergey(a)askmonty.org> branch nick: mysql-5.1-maria-contd2 timestamp: Tue 2009-09-08 20:21:38 +0400 message: Post-merge fix === removed directory 'mysql-test.percona'

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Knielsen): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 15:07)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,34 @@ +I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to +apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct +call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this +is correct: + +1. The existing code does + + if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) + +Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. + +2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for +BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to +make sure. + +Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use +--base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that +option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to +omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements +for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the +format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG +statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events +contained in these statements. + +Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the +source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), +then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement +be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an +error). + +The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need +to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be +omitted. -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it will change the slave's server_id when applied. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this is correct: 1. The existing code does if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. 2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to make sure. Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use --base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events contained in these statements. Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an error). The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be omitted. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Knielsen): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 15:07)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.19208 2009-09-08 15:07:09.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,34 @@ +I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to +apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct +call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this +is correct: + +1. The existing code does + + if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) + +Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. + +2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for +BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to +make sure. + +Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use +--base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that +option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to +omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements +for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the +format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG +statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events +contained in these statements. + +Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the +source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), +then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement +be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an +error). + +The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need +to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be +omitted. -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it will change the slave's server_id when applied. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: I think the fix for point 2 is to replace the call to apply_event_and_update_pos() in mysql_client_binlog_statement() with a direct call to ev->apply_event(). However, I need to check two things to be sure this is correct: 1. The existing code does if (!ev->when) ev->when= my_time(0) Need to understand if this is needed/correct or not. 2. The existing code does ev->update_pos(). I think this is redundant for BINLOG statement (as it uses a fake rli structure), but I need to check to make sure. Once this is done, point 1 may no longer be needed. The user can use --base64-output=never when applying the output to a 5.0 server, and omit that option when applying the output to a 5.1 server. There should be no need to omit the format description event in the output when other BINLOG statements for row events are present, as it no longer changes the server id. In fact the format description event is required to be able to execute other BINLOG statements, as its purpose is to define the binary format of the events contained in these statements. Alternatively, we could implement that if the format description event of the source binlog has server version < 5.1, and --base64-output=auto (default), then the format description event is omitted (and should any BINLOG statement be needed, unlikely as it is from a 5.0 server, we will need to throw an error). The binlog format version for 5.0 and 5.1 is actually the same, hence the need to look at server version to guess if the format description event can be omitted. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Knielsen): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it will change the slave's server_id when applied. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Knielsen): mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement (50)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: mysqlbinlog: remove undesired effects of format description binlog statement CREATION DATE..: Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:12 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-RawIdeaBin TASK ID........: 50 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=50) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 2 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Knielsen - Tue, 08 Sep 2009, 14:29)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.17531 2009-09-08 14:29:30.000000000 +0300 @@ -12,3 +12,37 @@ One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? +First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log +events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG +statement is executed with its own id as server_id. + +It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch +makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary +event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting +format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG +statements). + +Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement +is wrong: + +1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not +written using BINLOG. + +2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic +replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other +server ids in the cycle. + +3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event +is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The +functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server +executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. + +In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when +executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like +updating binlog position). + +Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be +able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is +it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the +former is the most important one. + -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 07 Sep 2009, 10:06)=-=- Research worklog, bugs, and existing server code. Worked 2 hours and estimate 0 hours remain (original estimate increased by 2 hours). -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- Dependency created: 39 now depends on 50 -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 14:13)=-=- High-Level Specification modified. --- /tmp/wklog.50.old.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.50.new.11389 2009-08-17 14:13:05.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1,14 @@ +First item +---------- +AFAIU what needs to be done is: +1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). +2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or + below. + +and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. + +Second item +----------- +One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is +why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? DESCRIPTION: According to complaints in BUG#46640: 1. mysqlbinlog will emit a 5.0-incompatible "format description binlog statement" even when reading a binary log that was produced by 5.0. This will cause an error when one tires to apply mysqlbinlog output to a 5.0.x server. 2. When one applies "format description binlog statement" at the slave, it will change the slave's server_id when applied. This WL is to fix these issues. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: First item ---------- AFAIU what needs to be done is: 1. record a source server version (it is in the first binlog event). 2. don't emit a BINLOG statement if the recorded version number is 5.0.x or below. and we'll get a 5.0-applicable binlog. Second item ----------- One question that one needs to sort out before disabling server_id change is why it was put there in the first place? Should it be always removed? First, the problem is not the format description log event. In fact all log events have their own value of server_id, and every event in the BINLOG statement is executed with its own id as server_id. It seems it was introduced deliberately in the patch for Bug#32407. This patch makes sql thread and BINLOG statement share code path for executing the binary event, even though the bug is really about something different (outputting format description event to allow proper execution of other BINLOG statements). Nevertheless, I think using the server_id in the events of a BINLOG statement is wrong: 1. It is different behaviour from executing normal statement-based events not written using BINLOG. 2. It causes the possibility for infinite cycle of replication in a cyclic replication setup, if the server ids in BINLOG are different from all other server ids in the cycle. 3. The functionality of applying events with original server id from the event is still available by pointing the slave thread to the binlog. The functionality of applying row-based binlog events with server id of the server executing the BINLOG statements is not otherwise available. In fact most of the code from the slave thread that is now also run when executing BINLOG statements is redundant, or does the wrong thing (like updating binlog position). Maybe there is a confusion on the purpose of the BINLOG statement. Is it to be able to apply row-based events manually to a server (mysqlbinlog|mysql)? Or is it to be able to simulate the effect of the slave sql thread? I think the former is the most important one. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB release help
by Kristian Nielsen 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz <hakan(a)askmonty.org> writes: > Where do you need some help for our release? Looking at http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB_5.1_TODO, seems it is currently mostly the mysql-5.1.38 merge. One thing that would be useful is to try some additional testing on top of what is already in Buildbot, as there is quite a lot missing... some of this might be better done after the merge is pushed though, but you could start preparing. Maybe you could check what additional test suites/tools are already available that could be used? Stuff like unit tests, mysql-test-run --ps-protocol, additional test suites... One thing in particular is to prepare to test the actual release. Releases are built in a two-step process, first build a source tarball, and then build the binaries from those sources. Buildbot builds directly from a bzr checkout. And Binaries are run from the installed location, while Buildbot runs the tests from the build directory. It would be really embarrassing if some major part of our binaries were released completely broken due to some file or something not being included and no testing at all done :-(. So we could use some tools to test stuff like this. Eventually we want this in Buildbot of course. Concrete suggestion: 1. Testing on installed mysqld. Run `BUILD/compile-dist && make dist`. Unpack those sources and run `./configure <options> && make && make install`. Run `make clean` (to catch bad references into build dir). Then run the testsuite on the installed mysqld. 2. What we used to call "smoke test" at MySQL: Build a binary package, then install it on some machine and see that it can start and stop. Basically testing the package stuff (directory structure, mysqld_safe, ...) which is not covered by the test suite. See http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB::PackageBuild for how packages are built currently. > My idea to work on and look into it: Currently we have around 10 test > failures on Mac/PPC. If you want, I can start looking into those > failures. Where should we report failing tests? I would like to open > a bug for each test failure. Currently we seem to be using Launchpad for bugs. However, it does not sound all that useful to blindly report one bug per failure. Probably some of them are related with same root cause. If you can identify those root causes, then one bug each makes sense (maybe this is what you meant). Otherwise a single bug probably, just noting that someone needs to look into it when time is available. - Kristian.

2 1

[Maria-developers] [Branch ~maria-captains/maria/5.1] Rev 2730: Fix that thd->query_plan_flags was not initialised prior to executing non-query commands
by noreply＠launchpad.net 07 Sep '09

07 Sep '09

------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 2730 committer: knielsen(a)knielsen-hq.org branch nick: work timestamp: Mon 2009-09-07 15:13:58 +0200 message: Fix that thd->query_plan_flags was not initialised prior to executing non-query commands (also fixes a Valgrind warning in Buildbot). modified: sql/sql_parse.cc -- lp:maria https://code.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/5.1 Your team Maria developers is subscribed to branch lp:maria. To unsubscribe from this branch go to https://code.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/5.1/+edit-subscription.

1 0