- developers - lists.mariadb.org

Re: [Maria-developers] MDEV-6179: dynamic columns functions/cast()/convert() doesn't play nice with CREATE/ALTER TABLE in file:///home/bell/maria/bzr/work-maria-5.5-MDEV-6179/
by Sergei Golubchik 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Hi, Sanja! On Nov 02, sanja(a)askmonty.org wrote: > At file:///home/bell/maria/bzr/work-maria-5.5-MDEV-6179/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > revno: 4341 > revision-id: sanja(a)askmonty.org-20141102133114-v46li6r2goyzhhp7 > parent: sanja(a)askmonty.org-20141031130729-dya4hci39x6zrv89 > committer: sanja(a)askmonty.org > branch nick: work-maria-5.5-MDEV-6179 > timestamp: Sun 2014-11-02 14:31:14 +0100 > message: > MDEV-6179: dynamic columns functions/cast()/convert() doesn't play > nice with CREATE/ALTER TABLE > > Type attributes (length, dec, charset) which parsed to global > variables now saved and restored during prsing types which can > appeared in a expression. Why did you create a stack in LEX, when bison generated parser already has a stack of states? Also, there's no need to store that in LEX, it doesn't need to live longer than the field_spec rule. By coincidence I've spent a couple of last days rewriting this very part of the parser. I've also fixed this bug without knowing it :) But in 10.1, and the patch is too big to put it in 10.0, let alone 5.5, so it's useless here. Still, I tried to create a smaller patch for this bug in 5.5. Please, review, it's on the commit list. Regards, Sergei

1 0

Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB 10.0.14 got rid of replication safety warning without warning in release notes?
by Pavel Ivanov 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

And here's response from Monty to my last email. And this response together with the whole thread makes me really worried. It alludes to the fact that all MySQL and MariaDB developers before making any changes should read the whole codebase first and then make sure that their changes work the same way and that they conform to the intentions of original code developers even though there's no way they can talk to those original developers. AFAIK that's not how development on big projects with hundreds of participants works. And it really raises the question for me: what kind of quality the product that is developed with such principles in mind can have? Sergei Golubchik, I believe you are the technical leader of MariaDB project. Could you please tell me what you think about this issue? On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Michael Widenius <michael.widenius(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > >>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Ivanov <pivanof(a)google.com> writes: > > Pavel> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael Widenius <monty(a)mariadb.org> wrote: >>>>> This is the same order that keys are presented in SHOW CREATE TABLE >>> > Pavel> Why is it safe to assume that keys have the same order on master and on slave? >>> >>> Primary and Unique keys should always be ordered the same way on >>> master and slave. This is handled by the 'sort_keys()' function that >>> you can find at: sql/sql_table.cc, line 2770. > > Pavel> This function seem to sort only by "type" of the key. If several > Pavel> unique keys have the same "type" according to its classification then > Pavel> they will be in the "original order" as the comment in the function > Pavel> says. And the original order may be different. > > This function ensures that the table will be identical on slave and > master as long as one of the following requirements are fulfilled: > > - You are using the same create table and alter table statements on > both machines. > - You are using the same CREATE TABLE statement as 'show create' shows > on the master. > - You are adding unique keys in the same order on master and slave. > > This is always the case when you are using the replication that MySQL > and MariaDB uses. > > If you are creating tables differently on the slave than on the > master, then you are on your own. > > So in all normal and most abnormal cases, the table will be created > identically on the master and slave, even if the slave is using a > different storage engine, have different columns or have additional > keys than on the master. > > <cut> > >>> I added a test for this to: >>> mysql-test/t/insert.test >>> >>> --echo # >>> --echo # MDEV-5168: Ensure that we can disable duplicate key warnings >>> --echo # from INSERT IGNORE >>> --echo # > > Pavel> This test doesn't check which duplicate key is asserted to execute ON > Pavel> DUPLICATE KEY action. > > This test verifies that we don't get warnings for the tests. > Elinas test verifies which key is used. > >>> Elena added another test for this in >>> mysql-test/suite/storage_engine/insert_with_keys.test >>> >>> See line 142, that start with: >>> --let $create_definition = a $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, b $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, c $int_col > > Pavel> This test seem to check that UPDATE is executed on the correct > Pavel> duplicate key, but it's not executed during regular mtr run. How and > Pavel> when it's executed in MariaDB? > > The storage engine tests are to be used by people that implements > their own storage engine for MariaDB. > > We run the extended tests from time to time to verify storage engines. > We will also run it on some buildbot servers when running releae builds. > The storage engine tests is not something that has to be run for > normal builds. > >>> What is important is that all storage engine should work the same >>> way. If one returns something different compared to any of the >>> existing engines then it's a bug. >>> >>> In this case the implicit documentation is how MyISAM, Aria and InnoDB >>> works. All of them returns the first conflicting key. > > Pavel> I'm sorry to say, but you've explained exactly the reason why this > Pavel> behavior is not guaranteed and can be changed at any time. > > It can only be changed if someone adds new code that breaks the > storage engine interface, as defined by existing engines and one > doesn't check it with the storage engine test suite. > > Pavel> Yes, I > Pavel> understand that when you wrote the interface you had some particular > Pavel> requirements in mind. But ultimately it's up to people actively > Pavel> working on the code (who I believe are counted by hundreds now) to > Pavel> decide whether to maintain the particular behavior or change > it. > > It's the MariaDB captains that are responsible to maintain the > interface. The only way one can change something is to propose a > change and get it accepted. > > It's not free for anyone to just change old functionality and expect > that to be accepted in the standard version. > > In all cases, including this, it's an absolute requirement that > engines MUST work exactly as existing engines, so that a user can > switch engines and expect them to work identically. > > (The only exceptions are things that are impossible to fix, like > the differences between transactional and not transactional tables and > that there is no defined row order in tables). > > If engine writes don't ensure this, then you will get data corruption > on the server by just running with different engines. > > For case on insert on duplicate key, there is no acceptable reason > for engines to work differently. > > Pavel> And > Pavel> as nobody knows the original requirements. > > The original requirements was well defined. Just that non one bother > to ask doesn't mean that the requirement didn't exist. > > And the fact that all existing engines in MariaDB ensures this shows > that the requirements has been understood. > > In the case when we notice that two engines works differently, it's up > to the MariaDB captains to fix this! > The fix is NOT to extend the API and allow things to work differently. > > > Pavel> and the reasons why they > Pavel> can't be changed, and when the behavior is not tested anywhere > > We add new tests when we notice that they are needed, as we did in > this case. > For example, the case with INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY is now tested. > > Pavel> and > Pavel> doesn't have any documentation even in the weakest form of comments or > Pavel> asserts, the decision is usually very easy -- change at will, nobody > Pavel> should ever depend on implementation details. > > Yes, no one should depend in implementation details, except when the > implementation detail is different from other engines and it results > in different data. > > If that is the case then the engine that does things differently than > the existing engines must be changed. > > Pavel> Even if you promise to > Pavel> fix storage engines that change this behavior, by the time you notice > Pavel> the change you'll likely won't be able to fix it (as e.g. in case of > Pavel> https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6916) or someone will > Pavel> already experience a data corruption. > > In most cases we can fix this. What was unfortunate with the views > code was that we didn't store the MariaDB version number in the view > definition. This is to be fixed in 10.1 so that this will never happen > again! > > Pavel> I'd strongly recommend to revert this change. > > Sorry, but I can't agree to revert the change because: > > a) Something that can't ever happen in MariaDB (when used correctly > with the including engines). > b) Allowing a behavior that could for the same command result in > different data sets, depending on the storage engine. > c) I have not seen a real world > > One of my main jobs is to ensure that the storage engine API is > evolved in a resonable manner and if there is a conflict between how > storage engine works ensure that things are resolved so that the user > can expect the same results independent on the storage engine. > > Reverting the change would go directly agains the above and also > against what I belive is the future of the storage engine API. > > Regards, > Monty

2 1

Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB 10.0.14 got rid of replication safety warning without warning in release notes?
by Pavel Ivanov 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

Monty, can you please subscribe all your email address to maria-develoeprs@ ? People reading the list cannot see your emails. I'm forwarding here the unaltered message from Monty that I was answering to in my last email. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael Widenius <monty(a)mariadb.org> wrote: > > Hi! > > I have again to apologize for a late reply. > After my last reply to your topic I traveled to China and noticed > that the firewall there has got much better; You can't access google, > twitter, facebook, blogspot etc :( I tried to connect over a VPN, but > that didn't work for me either. > > It did feel a bit strange to not be able to do computer work for more > than a week, but the lovely people in China who took care of me did > compensate for that. > >>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Ivanov <pivanof(a)google.com> writes: > > Pavel> Which key is "the first duplicate key". >>> >>> The first key that has a duplicate value in the order of keys in the KEY >>> structure that MariaDB provides for the storage engine. > > Pavel> I'm definitely not that familiar with the relevant MariaDB code, but I > Pavel> didn't find KEY structure to be passed to any insert-related function. > Pavel> Can you elaborate (preferably with code references) how this > Pavel> restriction is supposed to work? > > The following code examples are from 10.0. > > All handler functions get access to the TABLE object, which defines > the record format and the keys. > > The keys are stored in TABLE->key_info (see table.h, line 1062) > > When one reads a key, one refers to keys according to the number in > the key_info structure. For example: > > A set of reads by key is done by calling: > > handler->ha_index_init(key_number,..); > read_until_no_more_rows > handler->ha_index_read_map(). > handler->ha->index_end() > > When one calls handler->info() to ask for a which key caused a > duplicate error, it's supposed to store the first duplicate key (key > with smallest number) in handler->errkey. > >>> This is the same order that keys are presented in SHOW CREATE TABLE > > Pavel> Why is it safe to assume that keys have the same order on master and on slave? > > Primary and Unique keys should always be ordered the same way on > master and slave. This is handled by the 'sort_keys()' function that > you can find at: sql/sql_table.cc, line 2770. > > The only case when this is not the case, is if you add an unique key > on the slave that was not on the master and there is conflicts when > you insert things because of this key. > > However, if you do this, I would say that you are on your own. > >>> To help engine writes we are constantly adding new test in the storage >>> engine test suite, to make it easier for storage engine vendors to >>> test that their storage engine follows the interface. >>> We have now added a test to check for the correct behaviour for the >>> case of INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY. > > Pavel> This is very interesting. Can you say which test it is and what > Pavel> exactly does it test? Is it present in 10.0.14 or it's only at the > Pavel> latest 10.0 branch? > > I added a test for this to: > mysql-test/t/insert.test > > --echo # > --echo # MDEV-5168: Ensure that we can disable duplicate key warnings > --echo # from INSERT IGNORE > --echo # > > Elena added another test for this in > mysql-test/suite/storage_engine/insert_with_keys.test > > See line 142, that start with: > --let $create_definition = a $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, b $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, c $int_col > >>> Do you have or use a storage engine that doesn't provide the expected value >>> for the conflicting key ? > > Pavel> I don't have a specific example of storage engine that detects > Pavel> duplicate key in different order, but I'm not convinced and don't have > Pavel> hard proof that such engine cannot exist and that InnoDB itself is not > Pavel> susceptible to this problem. I can easily imagine though that even > Pavel> given the particular order of keys in table definition the key > Pavel> reported as having duplicate can depend on the way storage engine > Pavel> stores those keys. > > As key order is defined on the upper level, above InnoDB, this should > be 100 % safe (at least for InnoDB). > > For other store engines, this is safe for any engine that test for > duplicate key in key order. > > If we ever find a case where it's not safe with any storage engine > that we deliver with MariaDB, we will fix the storage engine. > > It's ok if they do thing differently so that they can detect duplicate > key for other keys faster. > > However, it has been required from all storage engines from start that > if one calls 'handler->info()' to request which key was duplicated, > they must return the first key. > > If not, they are breaking the storage engine interface (both for MySQL > and MariaDB) as there is no way the upper level can guarantee that > things will work identically between storage engines. > > Pavel> BTW, can you point to MySQL documentation and/or comment in the code > Pavel> that indicates this requirement to storage engine implementation? > > Most of the storage engine interface is not 100 % documented. This is > one of the case. > However, I wrote the code related to errkey and this is how it was > supposed to work. > In general if something is not documented, then it's up to the people > that created the interface or are actively working on it to define how > it should work. > > What is important is that all storage engine should work the same > way. If one returns something different compared to any of the > existing engines then it's a bug. > > In this case the implicit documentation is how MyISAM, Aria and InnoDB > works. All of them returns the first conflicting key. > > Pavel> On the related note Release Notes mention the error log flood > Pavel> protection. Why it's not behind flag? How should I disable the feature > Pavel> and get back to the old behavior? > >>> We already had in MariaDB flood protection for some error >>> messages. > > Pavel> Can you say exactly which error messages are suppressed already? Is > Pavel> there a documentation link about that? > > All 'unsafe logging' errors are suppressed. > See enum enum_binlog_stmt_unsafe in sql_lex.h > (This is what I know). > >>> I am happy to look into adding a flag that is usable for any kind of >>> suppressed messages. >>> >>> A couple of ways to do this: >>> >>> a) Not suppress anything if you give --log-warnings a value > 2 >>> b) make LIMIT_UNSAFE_WARNING_ACTIVATION_TIMEOUT a configurable >>> variable, where 0 would mean no suppression. >>> >>> Which of the above, or both, would you prefer? >>> Or do you have any other suggestion of how to do this? > > Pavel> Reading documentation on --log-warnings I don't see how it can be > Pavel> related to the error suppression. So I think making > Pavel> LIMIT_UNSAFE_WARNING_ACTIVATION_TIMEOUT configurable would be much > Pavel> better, though it should apply to all possible error suppressions. > > Currently we only have suppression for a limited set of 'unsafe' > errors, but I agree that when we add a flag we should name this with > a general name to be able to reuse it for all possible future > suppressions. > > In 10.1 we are looking at adding a feature that one can suppress any > error from the error log, but that's a different topic. > > Regards, > Monty

1 0

[Maria-developers] Maybe a new information schema table for replication?
by Roberto Spadim 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi guys, i got one question these days and i don't know how to solve... the question is: "How to see the queries executing by replication thread?" i'm thinking about a information schema plugin to see whats is 'queued' in replication thread, at "master" (write to binlog) and "slave" (executing from binlog) side any idea if this is possible? i didn't checked or read any part of binlog/replication code yet thanks guys! :) -- Roberto Spadim SPAEmpresarial Eng. Automação e Controle

1 0

[Maria-developers] pcre.h should be installed if MariaDB is built with bundled pcre ?
by Kazuhiko Shiozaki 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi, pcre.h is not installed by 'make install' even if MariaDB is built with bundled pcre. But pcre.h is referred in one of installed header files like : include/mysql/private/item_cmpfunc.h:#include "pcre.h" /* pcre header file */ So I think that it is better to install pcre.h as well if MariaDB is built with bundled pcre. What do you think ? -- Kazuhiko Shiozaki, Nexedi SA Senior Consultant Nexedi: Consulting and Development of Free / Open Source Software http://www.nexedi.com/ ERP5: Full Featured High End Open Source ERP http://www.erp5.com/

2 1

[Maria-developers] Fwd: Is it soon 'end of this year'?
by Peter Laursen 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

Forwarding to MariaDB developers mailing list. It may be a matter for somebody else than Sergei (Georg, for instance) (and "here" means"Webyog"). Abishek detailed errors in a chat with me "symbols like Snippet mysql_client_find_plugin , Snippet mysql_client_register_plugin are not found" ..exactly like in the MySQL bug report. Do you need a JIRA report with a full test case? -- Peter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Abhishek Kumar Pandey <abhishek.pandey(a)webyog.com> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [Maria-developers] Is it soon 'end of this year'? To: Peter Laursen <peter_laursen(a)webyog.com> Cc: "team. sqlyog" <team.sqlyog(a)webyog.com>, serg(a)mariadb.org, "team.monyog" <team.monyog(a)webyog.com> I am the developer here working with this. I am facing same problem as reported here- http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=69204 <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbugs.mysql.com%2Fbug.php%3Fid%3D69…> . Is the same fix needed in the mariadb library? On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Peter Laursen <peter_laursen(a)webyog.com> wrote: > You will get to this page: https://edelivery.oracle.com/ > > I think you should use a non-webyog email address. Not sure what Mahesh > did. He downloaded frequently in order to check latest MEM. > > > --Peter > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Peter Laursen <peter_laursen(a)webyog.com> > wrote: > >> You could also try to add the code as described by Sergei. First step is >> if it will compile and connect to servers not usinglain text/LDAP. >> >> -- Peter >> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Supratik Goswami < >> supratik.goswami(a)webyog.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Sudhindra Bhat < >>> sudhindra.bhat(a)webyog.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +supratik >>>> >>>> We will check this once we have access to MySQL Enterprise server from >>>> Oracle. >>>> >>>> @supratik, >>>> Do we have the binary for MySQL Enterprise server? A Trial is also >>>> sufficient. >>>> >>> >>> No, I think. You may download it. >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Peter Laursen < >>>> peter_laursen(a)webyog.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We need to try this again. I don't rememebr who gave up supporting >>>>> 'clear text plugin' with MariaDB API back in April 2013. Probably it was >>>>> not Sudhindra, Likely Shubhansh or Vishal. @Vishal: do you remember >>>>> anything? >>>>> >>>>> I remember one detail from the old discussion we had with MariaDB. >>>>> They told something like "Once enabled nothing special need to be done to >>>>> support clear text. The client wll automatically detect when the server >>>>> requests the password sent as clear text". This mean as far as I can >>>>> understand that we will - unlke early 11.x version - not need a checkbox in >>>>> the connection manager. >>>>> >>>>> We also need access to a commercial server (TRIAL) from Oracle. Mahesh >>>>> could arrange that. Who can today? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Sergei Golubchik <serg(a)mariadb.org> >>>>> Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:24 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Maria-developers] Is it soon 'end of this year'? >>>>> To: Peter Laursen <peter_laursen(a)webyog.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, Peter! >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 13, Peter Laursen wrote: >>>>> > Thanks .. you probabaly know that I am not a developer rmyself (I >>>>> basically >>>>> > stopped being so when ALGOL died 35 years ago!). I have shared all >>>>> > information with SQLyog developer team and we will look into this >>>>> again. >>>>> >>>>> Sure! Don't hesitate to tell if something won't work for you. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sergei >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Sudhindra Bhat >>>> >>> >>> >> >

2 1

Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB 10.0.14 got rid of replication safety warning without warning in release notes?
by Pavel Ivanov 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael Widenius <monty(a)mariadb.org> wrote: >>> This is the same order that keys are presented in SHOW CREATE TABLE > > Pavel> Why is it safe to assume that keys have the same order on master and on slave? > > Primary and Unique keys should always be ordered the same way on > master and slave. This is handled by the 'sort_keys()' function that > you can find at: sql/sql_table.cc, line 2770. This function seem to sort only by "type" of the key. If several unique keys have the same "type" according to its classification then they will be in the "original order" as the comment in the function says. And the original order may be different. > The only case when this is not the case, is if you add an unique key > on the slave that was not on the master and there is conflicts when > you insert things because of this key. > > However, if you do this, I would say that you are on your own. > >>> To help engine writes we are constantly adding new test in the storage >>> engine test suite, to make it easier for storage engine vendors to >>> test that their storage engine follows the interface. >>> We have now added a test to check for the correct behaviour for the >>> case of INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY. > > Pavel> This is very interesting. Can you say which test it is and what > Pavel> exactly does it test? Is it present in 10.0.14 or it's only at the > Pavel> latest 10.0 branch? > > I added a test for this to: > mysql-test/t/insert.test > > --echo # > --echo # MDEV-5168: Ensure that we can disable duplicate key warnings > --echo # from INSERT IGNORE > --echo # This test doesn't check which duplicate key is asserted to execute ON DUPLICATE KEY action. > Elena added another test for this in > mysql-test/suite/storage_engine/insert_with_keys.test > > See line 142, that start with: > --let $create_definition = a $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, b $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, c $int_col This test seem to check that UPDATE is executed on the correct duplicate key, but it's not executed during regular mtr run. How and when it's executed in MariaDB? >>> Do you have or use a storage engine that doesn't provide the expected value >>> for the conflicting key ? > > Pavel> I don't have a specific example of storage engine that detects > Pavel> duplicate key in different order, but I'm not convinced and don't have > Pavel> hard proof that such engine cannot exist and that InnoDB itself is not > Pavel> susceptible to this problem. I can easily imagine though that even > Pavel> given the particular order of keys in table definition the key > Pavel> reported as having duplicate can depend on the way storage engine > Pavel> stores those keys. > > As key order is defined on the upper level, above InnoDB, this should > be 100 % safe (at least for InnoDB). > > For other store engines, this is safe for any engine that test for > duplicate key in key order. > > If we ever find a case where it's not safe with any storage engine > that we deliver with MariaDB, we will fix the storage engine. > > It's ok if they do thing differently so that they can detect duplicate > key for other keys faster. > > However, it has been required from all storage engines from start that > if one calls 'handler->info()' to request which key was duplicated, > they must return the first key. > > If not, they are breaking the storage engine interface (both for MySQL > and MariaDB) as there is no way the upper level can guarantee that > things will work identically between storage engines. > > Pavel> BTW, can you point to MySQL documentation and/or comment in the code > Pavel> that indicates this requirement to storage engine implementation? > > Most of the storage engine interface is not 100 % documented. This is > one of the case. > However, I wrote the code related to errkey and this is how it was > supposed to work. > In general if something is not documented, then it's up to the people > that created the interface or are actively working on it to define how > it should work. > > What is important is that all storage engine should work the same > way. If one returns something different compared to any of the > existing engines then it's a bug. > > In this case the implicit documentation is how MyISAM, Aria and InnoDB > works. All of them returns the first conflicting key. I'm sorry to say, but you've explained exactly the reason why this behavior is not guaranteed and can be changed at any time. Yes, I understand that when you wrote the interface you had some particular requirements in mind. But ultimately it's up to people actively working on the code (who I believe are counted by hundreds now) to decide whether to maintain the particular behavior or change it. And as nobody knows the original requirements and the reasons why they can't be changed, and when the behavior is not tested anywhere and doesn't have any documentation even in the weakest form of comments or asserts, the decision is usually very easy -- change at will, nobody should ever depend on implementation details. Even if you promise to fix storage engines that change this behavior, by the time you notice the change you'll likely won't be able to fix it (as e.g. in case of https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6916) or someone will already experience a data corruption. I'd strongly recommend to revert this change. Thank you, Pavel

1 0

[Maria-developers] MDEV-5528 Command line variable to choose MariaDB-5.3 vs MySQL-5.6 temporal data formats
by Alexander Barkov 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

Hello Ian, I've pushed MDEV-5528 into 10.1. I guess it will need some documenting. Can you please have a look? Thanks.

1 0

[Maria-developers] nginx sources in mroonga
by Alexander Barkov 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

Hi Kentoku, Sergei Golubchik is asking why we have complete nginx sources inside mroonga? Can you remove them please? Thanks.

3 2

[Maria-developers] Cross-compiling MariaDB galera cluster
by Sylvain Raybaud 30 Oct '14

30 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear MariaDB community, Recently I've been trying to cross-compile MariaDB and I've been running in some problems. I'd like to have your opinion on them. 1) Determining stack direction 2) Building Percona XtraDB 3) Building jemalloc Let me first tell that I'm trying to build MariaDB galera version 10.0.12. I'm compiling for Arm but may be compiling for something else in the unpredictable future. 1) Determining stack direction I started by passing the following options to cmake (via the buildroot system): - -DCMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING=1 -DWITH_WSREP=1 -DWITH_INNODB_DISALLOW_WRITES=1 The first problem I ran into was cmake complaining: STACK_DIRECTION is not defined. Please specify -DSTACK_DIRECTION=1 or -DSTACK_DIRECTION=-1 when calling cmake. It seems that STACK_DIRECTION is not automatically determined when cross-compiling. I may determine the correct value for a given target. But if I need a portable solution (and I need one in order to create a buildroot package so that I can build for many different target without too much hassle) I'm not sure what my options are. It seems that the toolchain is aware of this value since stack direction (or more precisely STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD) is set in ./output/host/opt/ext-toolchain/lib/gcc/arm-none-linux-gnueabi/4.8.1/plugin/include/config/arm/arm.h Maybe there is a way to use this somehow? What do you think? 2) Building Percona XtraDB For the sake of trying I explicitly set -DSTACK_DIRECTION=1 just to see what happens. Building goes on until it reaches the xtradb module. Then it fails with: CMake Error at storage/xtradb/CMakeLists.txt:434 (MESSAGE): Percona XtraDB is not supported on this platform (Here I'll just copy-paste something I wrote on maria-discuss list a few days ago) This error is triggered in storage/xtradb/CMakeLists.txt when XTRADB_OK is not set; it seems to me that XTRADB_OK is set in either one of the following cases: a) CMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING is NOT set and some tests are successful (thus setting HAVE_IB_GCC_ATOMIC_BUILTINS) or b) We're compiling for MSVC or CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME is "SunOS" and some other conditions are met. Since I'm not compiling for MSVC or SunOS and I'm crosscompiling indeed, XTRADB_OK is not set and the error is triggered. Here I'm stuck. I've got the feeling that as such one cannot cross-compile xtradb because XTRADB_OK will never be set; or maybe with proper options passed to cmake the tests would be made elsewhere and HAVE_IB_GCC_ATOMIC_BUILTINS would be set beforehand? Or maybe I should patch this CMakeLists.txt? Or maybe I should just compile without xtradb altogether, if that's possible? Finally I just passed -DXTRADB_OK just to see what would happen, again (obviously there is little chance that it would result in anything usable). And reached problem #3: 3) Building jemalloc This one fails at configure time with: checking whether we are cross compiling... configure: error: in `/home/sylvain/DEPOTS/buildroot/output/build/mariadb-galera-10.0.12/extra/jemalloc/build': configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs. If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. Somehow I was expecting that having passed -DCMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING=1 and the host being set by buildroot it would propagate down to the modules... Am I missing something? At this point I'm out of dirty hacks, even to "see what happens" ;) Cheers, - -- Sylvain Raybaud www.green-communications.fr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT4ke/AAoJEEkkwl4JtJ9yJW0QALBz3wj0VsfMtUBUabP13q74 ++y1AiCLZ0js+UGCqxB9PVz4yvhhnMAz8QnPpH37XJtDm+VaJBQTEZL65CHF3nlr dHe46/q/wswlbdhNsQu6JmMe3JoOe2TFbjDenQMiUvW9mOilt86ioveHVLGYbpnq 5LYMrPlYXUBpDcxEYXXbTpIHsAoHUrOE1Gj5AsxwbUvQuHDDr9M/Ws01iIXLbzT8 0pImhgBPYUwqaj9tJnPkls+9LzoOb2m269n9TCbmWk0ixakpHjeNMn5lnRDhOwNh AKkHrGdMUomSBca4G0kQoeNxwC2rCjO8+bRxjh7v6GTdME/sgsgn3yOv2EznldUr tFaO/JfraHSUgmiRyVo41U3uTESxZKRJYOV9IqUhl4HiS85D5oa/bD6l84rhx95J 52/hUoApoStr8tSk0tzXk1/UWJEQ3fUZ7XoXqgWq+c1uMgbgZftAAqAw7Xvmc88t tf69FqBzw5dpf8Kg0I7iAggBpBLIWGJwnlVvcmLY4UUE1cDFfZstMBSXaS155LQF VClK+ytE2Ef8oAB9/nlMXgg4b3WXlD0PRQDRTNIwCAzdvsuu+S0q64xLtw/JYnLl KPcLWfwXy+kRhT+vtUWtqMjjkSQ3e6rJDybK11vgYIAWm/Xfk5s8i0g7Bgmnf3wp JGYUAR285gY0XMqL6LmU =vBo4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 4