- developers - lists.mariadb.org

[Maria-developers] MDEV-12803 Improve function parameter data type control
by Alexander Barkov 15 May '17

15 May '17

Hello Alexey, can you please review a patch for MDEV-12803? Thanks!

1 0

[Maria-developers] String functions have their item->maybe_null=true unnecessarily, blocking optimizations
by Sergey Petrunia 15 May '17

15 May '17

Hi Alexander, I was looking at https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-11893 and found this piece of code: bool Item_str_func::fix_fields(THD *thd, Item **ref) { bool res= Item_func::fix_fields(thd, ref); /* In Item_str_func::check_well_formed_result() we may set null_value flag on the same condition as in test() below. */ maybe_null= maybe_null || thd->is_strict_mode(); return res; } This has been introduced by this cset: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/af22eb35e577ef17226faf662f2cffc470… Which says: Add Item_str_func::fix_fields() implementation, and set maybe_null to TRUE if we are in the SQL mode that requires some functions to return null even if they normally do not. The patch has only one example of CHAR() function doing that. At the same time, not having NOT-NULL attribute disallows query opimizations (see MDEV-11893 for an example). I think we should have this maybe_null= maybe_null || thd->is_strict_mode(); logic on a case-by-case basis only. I wanted to check with you - are there any other known string functions that, as the patch puts it "return null even if they normally do not"? BR Sergei -- Sergei Petrunia, Software Developer MariaDB Corporation | Skype: sergefp | Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog

2 1

[Maria-developers] MDEV-11340 Allow multiple alternative authentication methods for the same user
by serg＠mariadb.org 15 May '17

15 May '17

Hi, Ankit! I've started writing down my thoughts about MDEV-11340 "Allow multiple alternative authentication methods for the same user" See MDEV-11340 and feel free to comment on it. Regards, Sergei Chief Architect MariaDB and security(a)mariadb.org

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] [Commits] 8edbb1117a9: MDEV-12741: innodb.ibuf_not_empty failed in buildbot with "InnoDB: Trying to do I/O to a tablespace which does not exist"
by Marko Mäkelä 15 May '17

15 May '17

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, jan <jan.lindstrom(a)mariadb.com> wrote: > revision-id: 8edbb1117a9e1fd81fbd08b8f1d06c72efe38f44 (mariadb-10.2.5-168- > g8edbb1117a9) > parent(s): f4df8c00c957146f04db031f1f9f80aab229d1d2 > author: Jan Lindström > committer: Jan Lindström > timestamp: 2017-05-11 11:15:37 +0300 > message: > > MDEV-12741: innodb.ibuf_not_empty failed in buildbot with "InnoDB: Trying > to do I/O to a tablespace which does not exist" > > Background thread is doing ibuf merge, in buf0rea.cc > buf_read_ibuf_merge_pages(). > It first tries to get page_size and if space is not found it deletes them, > but > as we do not hold any mutexes, space can be marked as stopped between that > and buf_read_page_low() for same space. This naturally leads seen error > message on log. > > buf_read_page_low(): Add parameter ignore_missing_space = false that > is passed to fil_io() > [snip] > @@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ buf_read_page_low( > > *err = fil_io( > request, sync, page_id, page_size, 0, page_size.physical(), > - dst, bpage); > + dst, bpage, ignore_missing_space); > > if (sync) { > thd_wait_end(NULL); > Can you please add the parameter to the IORequest? It would seem to be a more appropriate place for this. (Ideally, fil_io() would only take the request as a parameter, but we do not want to do such a big refactoring right now.) Marko

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] [Commits] e6dabcd: MDEV-11196: Error:Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'key_buff'
by Sergey Petrunia 11 May '17

11 May '17

Hi Varun, So I am debugging the testcase from the bug report. I reach these lines: > if(i) > ext_key_length+= key_part->length; (Why there is no indentation btw?) and I see: (gdb) p key_part->length $40 = 3072 3072=1024*3, that is, the NULL-byte and length bytes are NOT counted. The code then proceeds to check if pk_length + ext_key_length <= MAX_KEY_LENGTH but that check could produce a wrong result if NULL- and length- bytes are not counted. The second issue is that I don't see where ext_key_length is zero'ed. I try debugging this query: CREATE TABLE t2 ( pk INT, f1 VARCHAR(3), f2 VARCHAR(1024), f2a VARCHAR(1024), PRIMARY KEY (pk), KEY(f2), KEY(f2a) ) ENGINE=InnoDB CHARSET utf8; I put a breakpoint at this line: > if (share->use_ext_keys && i && !(keyinfo->flags & HA_NOSAME) > && (pk_length + ext_key_length <= MAX_KEY_LENGTH)) (84 chars! where's the coding style again?) and I observe: (gdb) print ext_key_length $45 = 6144 This is clearly more than any [possible] key length for the table. So, this particular patch is not a solution (even if the testcase happens to pass with it). On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 04:23:11PM +0530, Varun wrote: > revision-id: e6dabcd3a7e994feaa1a1dc5d0c1a0d621272f72 (mariadb-10.2.2-387-ge6dabcd) > parent(s): 39bce67b7aa27fc7e5458f36838148f6e0f4c3af > author: Varun Gupta > committer: Varun Gupta > timestamp: 2017-05-08 16:21:32 +0530 > message: > > MDEV-11196: Error:Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'key_buff' > was corrupted, server crashes in opt_sum_query > > extended keys feature disabled if the length of extended key is longer than MAX_KEY_LEN > > --- > sql/table.cc | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sql/table.cc b/sql/table.cc > index 398383e..554fc78 100644 > --- a/sql/table.cc > +++ b/sql/table.cc > @@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ static bool create_key_infos(const uchar *strpos, const uchar *frm_image_end, > KEY_PART_INFO *key_part= NULL; > ulong *rec_per_key= NULL; > KEY_PART_INFO *first_key_part= NULL; > - uint first_key_parts= 0; > + uint first_key_parts= 0, pk_length=0, ext_key_length=0; > > if (!keys) > { > @@ -765,6 +765,7 @@ static bool create_key_infos(const uchar *strpos, const uchar *frm_image_end, > keyinfo->algorithm= first_keyinfo->algorithm; > if (new_frm_ver >= 3) > keyinfo->block_size= first_keyinfo->block_size; > + pk_length= keyinfo->key_length; > } > > keyinfo->key_part= key_part; > @@ -796,6 +797,8 @@ static bool create_key_infos(const uchar *strpos, const uchar *frm_image_end, > strpos+=7; > } > key_part->store_length=key_part->length; > + if(i) > + ext_key_length+= key_part->length; > } > > /* > @@ -805,7 +808,8 @@ static bool create_key_infos(const uchar *strpos, const uchar *frm_image_end, > keyinfo->ext_key_parts= keyinfo->user_defined_key_parts; > keyinfo->ext_key_flags= keyinfo->flags; > keyinfo->ext_key_part_map= 0; > - if (share->use_ext_keys && i && !(keyinfo->flags & HA_NOSAME)) > + if (share->use_ext_keys && i && !(keyinfo->flags & HA_NOSAME) > + && (pk_length + ext_key_length <= MAX_KEY_LENGTH)) > { > for (j= 0; > j < first_key_parts && keyinfo->ext_key_parts < MAX_REF_PARTS; > _______________________________________________ > commits mailing list > commits(a)mariadb.org > https://lists.askmonty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commits -- BR Sergei -- Sergei Petrunia, Software Developer MariaDB Corporation | Skype: sergefp | Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog

1 0

[Maria-developers] MDEV-10764 PL/SQL parser - Phase 2 / MDEV-12137
by jerome brauge 11 May '17

11 May '17

2 1

[Maria-developers] mariadb-java-client 1.6.0 does not work from yesterday update ?
by Krishnan, Gnanavel (Nokia - IN/Chennai) 11 May '17

11 May '17

Hi All, I was using mariadb java client jar version 1.6.0. but looks it is not present in release document Also from yesterday 1.6.0 jar gets updated not sure why Should use only 1.5.9 or 2.0.0 rc ? https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/mariadb/jdbc/mariadb-java-client/1.6.0/ Thank you, Gnanavel.

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] [Commits] 39bce67: MDEV-11196: Error:Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'key_buff'
by Sergey Petrunia 10 May '17

10 May '17

Hi Varun, First reaction: > diff --git a/sql/sql_table.cc b/sql/sql_table.cc > index 84e4018..63636f9 100644 > --- a/sql/sql_table.cc > +++ b/sql/sql_table.cc > @@ -3948,7 +3948,11 @@ mysql_prepare_create_table(THD *thd, HA_CREATE_INFO *create_info, > key_part_info->fieldnr= field; > key_part_info->offset= (uint16) sql_field->offset; > key_part_info->key_type=sql_field->pack_flag; > - uint key_part_length= sql_field->key_length; > + uint key_part_length= MY_MAX(sql_field->key_length, > + sql_field->pack_length); What does the above do? It is not clear why MAX should be used. (Let's denote the compared variables X and Y. Can X>Y and X<Y both happen in practice? This requires a comment!) > + > + if (!(sql_field->flags & NOT_NULL_FLAG)) > + key_part_length++; > > if (column->length) > { I am concerned that the above may have an undesired effect: key_part_kength counts NULL-byte while previously it did not. Let's try this example: create table t1 (pk int not null primary key, col1 int, key(col1) ) engine=innodb; Run it, and put a breakpoint below on this code: /* Check if the key segment is partial, set the key flag accordingly */ if (key_part_length != sql_field->key_length) key_info->flags|= HA_KEY_HAS_PART_KEY_SEG; You will see that for filed 'col1' HA_KEY_HAS_PART_KEY_SEG flag is now set. This didn't happen before. Is this really intended? I wasn't able to find what exactly may get wrong, but if I run this query: explain select * from t1 where col1=1; then it hangs. BR Sergei -- Sergei Petrunia, Software Developer MariaDB Corporation | Skype: sergefp | Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog

1 0

[Maria-developers] MDEV-12775 Reuse data type aggregation code for hybrid functions and UNION
by Alexander Barkov 10 May '17

10 May '17

Hello Sanja, Please review a patch for MDEV-12775, also fixing a number of bugs: - MDEV-9495 Wrong field type for a UNION of a signed and an unsigned INT expression - MDEV-9497 UNION and COALESCE produce different field types for DECIMAL+INT - MDEV-12594 UNION between fixed length double columns does not always preserve scale - MDEV-12595 UNION converts INT to BIGINT - MDEV-12599 UNION is not symmetric when mixing INT and CHAR Thanks!

1 0

[Maria-developers] galera source and direction
by Daniel Black 09 May '17

09 May '17

With Codership's galera repository showing spelling fixes and test case changes as the only changes this year, and Percona's galera repository streaming ahead with improvements, is Percona's galera becoming the new base? I did a quick test though and the mtr tests all pass with Percona's galera on the 10.2 branch head.

1 0