A note from a peanut gallery: I think issuing a warning only when an actual conflict occurs is a bad idea, because due to a specific row order conflict may not occur on the master, but occur on slaves. And that can lead to a very bad replication breakage. On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> wrote:
Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> writes:
Anyway, it seems that we agree not to push it into 10.0. What do you think - shall it be pushed into 10.1 or not at all?
Well, as I said, I wouldn't have prioritised fixing that bug. However, now that you've made the patch, I think it's ok to push it to 10.1 if you want.
This only concerns UPDATE of unique key on non-transactional table. That's already a fairly edge-case scenario. So pushing this to 10.1 should not make much difference one way or the other. And the patch as such looks fine.
(Just fix the incorrect comment and possibly elaborate the commit message if you decide to push).
- Kristian.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp